RAVINDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.3.2010 passed by C.J.M., Etawah in case no.588 of 2010, Smt. Indrawati Vs. Ravindra Singh, under section 125 Cr.P.C., by which, the learned Magistrate allowed the maintenance application of opposite party no.2 and granted maintenance to her at the rate of Rs.500/ - per month from the date of order.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2, Smt. Indrawati moved an application against the revisionist Ravindra Singh on 7.9.1996 under section 125 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/ - per month. The application was allowed ex parte vide order dated 14.9.1999, which order was set aside on application under section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. The revisionist Ravindra Singh filed reply/written statement denying his marriage with the applicant Indrawati and contended that the revisionist and his elder brother were falsely implicated in a case of murder of Suresh (husband of applicant's sister) and a pressure was mounted on the revisionist that if he accepts his marriage with applicant Indrawati, the murder case will be withdrawn. After hearing counsel for the parties, the A.C.J.M., Etawah dismissed the maintenance application vide judgment and order dated 18.2.2008. Against the above order dated 18.2.2008, the applicant Indrawati filed Criminal Revision No.56 of 2008 before the Sessions Judge and vide judgment and order dated 20.1.2010, the revision was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Etawah and setting aside the judgment and order dated 18.2.2008, the case was remitted back to the Magistrate for afresh disposal, in view of observations made in the body of judgment as well as the evidence on record. Again after hearing both the parties, the learned C.J.M. has passed the impugned judgment and order on 20.3.2010 allowing the application of maintenance and awarding Rs.500/ - per month to her from the date of the order i.e. 20.3.2010. Feeling aggrieved, husband has preferred this revision.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. None appeared for the opposite party no.2, despite she is represented by learned counsel.