RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. SHAKUNTALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Pro ­cedure has been filed by Sri Rajendra Singh with the prayer that the order dated Feb ­ruary 4, 1981 passed by 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Agra and the order dated August 8, 1980 passed by Judicial Magis ­trate, 1st Class, Agra under Section 125, Cr.P.C. be set aside and the application of Smt. Shakuntala Devi respondent under Sec ­tion 125, Cr.P.C. be dismissed.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this petition are briefly put as below: -Smt. Shakuntala Devi respondent is legally wed ­ded wife of the petitioner Rajendra Singh. They were married on May 9, 1975. There ­after they lived together happily till Smt. Shakuntala Devi came to know that Rajen ­dra Singh petitioner had previously married one Smt. Lalita Devi and they had a son born on October 28, 1974. The fact that the petitioner had a legally wedded wife when he married the respondent was con ­cealed when he married Smt. Shakuntala. She, therefore, moved an application for maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. The petitioner contested the application on the ground that Smt. Lalita Devi was not his legally married wife but happened to be his neighbour and as a neighbour he carri ­ed Smt. Lalita Devi to hospital when she delivered a child. It was just by mistake that his name was written as father of the -child born to Smt. Lalita Devi. He further pleaded that the respondent Smt. Shakuntala Devi had her own friends and that was the actual reason why she Was not willing to live with him as his wife. Smt. Shakuntala Devi examined herself and produced Dal Chand (P.W. 2); Nathoo (P.W. 3), Jummu (P.W. 4) and Smt. Lalita Devi (P.W. 5) in support of her application. The peti ­tioner Rajendra Singh examined herself and produced Bhagwan Singh (D.W. 2) and Dhanpal Gautam (D.W. 3). The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the afore ­said evidence and after hearing submissions of both the parties arrived at the conclusion that Smt. Lalita Devi is closely connected with the petitioner through their legal maririage is not proved and that the petitioner has turned the respondent out of his house after harassing her. The learned Magis ­trate further believed that the monthly in ­come of the petitioner was Rs. 500| -. Con ­sequently he directed him to pay Rs. 150| -p.m. as maintenance to the respondent. He felt aggrieved and went in revision in the court of Sessions at Agra. The revision has been dismissed on February 4, 1981 hence this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) THE facts of the case cited above are clear ­ly distinguishable from the facts of the case before me. In the present case the point whether Shakuntala Devi was unable to maintain herself was contested by the peti ­tioner and as observed above it is abundantly clear that the petitioner was aware of the fact that she averts that she is unable to maintain herself and claims maintenance on that around vide para 9 of her application under Section 125. Cr.P.C. Both the courts below have fully considered this point and have given their findings in favour of respondent. The trial court has considered the evidence produced by the parties and liar given good reasons in his detailed judg ­ment for arriving at this conclusion. The learned Sessions Judge has considered all the points raised before him in revision. The findings of the trial court is that the monthly income of the petitioner is 500| - and the respondent is entitled to Rs. 150| - p.m. as maintenance. I see no reason in the least to interfere with these find ­ings of fact based on evidence on record and that too in exercise of the power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Interference in the order passed by courts below is not at all required either to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. In the result the petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. shall fail. The petition is dismissed.