MOTI RAM Vs. 1ST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question involved in this writ petition is whether the petition under S. 125, Cr.P.C. filed by the contesting opposite party Smt. Triveni can be entertained at Bareilly and also whether the child Km. Saraswati said to have born out of a wed-lock of Moti Ram, Petitioner and Smt. Triveni, Opposite Party can claim maintenance without herself being impleaded as an applicant in the said application.

(2.) The short facts are that applicant Moti Ram was married to Smt. Triveni and out of the siad wed-lock two daughters were born. This marriage, according to the allegations in the writ petition under S. 125, Cr.P.C., was performed in Bareilly. Thereafter husband and wife were living in Pilibhit. After a long passage of time Smt. Triveni was allegedly turned out along with the children from the house of Moti Ram in Pilibhit with the result she was forced to come at Bareilly with the children. In the meantime no efforts were made by Moti Ram to sendfor Smt. Triveni and the daughter nor did he take any step to maintain them. Consequently, the opposite party filed a petition under S. 125, CR.P.C before the Magistrate concerned in Bareilly with the prayer that a composite maintenance allowance of Rs. 125.00 be paid for her and her child Km. Saraswati.

(3.) An objection appears to have been taken by the petitioner Moti Ram relating to the proceedings. It is argued that the courts at Bareilly will have no jurisdiction and that without impleading the child as an applicant herself, Smt. Triveni could not claim maintenance allowance on her behalf. Further argument is that a composite prayer for the two persons, mother and the child was illegal.