RAM PRAKASH ACHARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ashish Chaturvedi and Shri Desh Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Raj Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.

(2.) This criminal revision under Sec. 19(4) of Family Court Act, 1984 has been filed against the order dtd. 22/9/2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, in Criminal Misc. Case No.388 of 2016 (Priyanka Achari Vs. Ram Prakash Achari), by which the application No.15-B moved by the revisionist in the trial court concerned, challenging the maintainability of the petition filed by the respondent no.2, claiming maintenance has been, rejected.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that as per settled proposition of law of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. only the legally wedded wife can claim the maintenance from her husband. Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad, considered the aadhar card of the opposite party no.2 as only basis to conclude that the opposite party no.2 is prima-facie wife of the revisionist. The opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of one Lavkush Shukla and the decree of divorce has not been taken as per procedure under Sec. 13 of Hindu Marriage Act. The opposite party no.2 herself alleged to be the second wife of revisionist and no proof of dissolution of her first marriage is ever produced in the concerned court below. Hence the order passed by the court below is perverse and against evidence on record, therefore, it is liable to be set-aside.