MAHADEO Vs. SUMITA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr. P. C.) arising out of the proceedings for maintenance initiated by the respondents under section 125 of the Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 21-5-1983 directed the applicant to pay maintenance of Rs. 100 per month to the non-applicant No. 1 and Rs. 30 per month to the non-applicant No. 2 from the date of filing of the application before him. The order of the learned Magistrate granting maintenance was challenged before the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No 147 of 1983. The learned Sessions Judge, however dismissed the revision and confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the orders on the Court below by preferring the instant application under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C.

(2.) The only contention which is advanced before me is that there was a customary divorce between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 under which there was a settlement by granting permanent alimony in the sum of Rs. 2,000 to the respondent No. 1 in full and final settlement of her claim relating thereto. The Respondent No. 1 has denied that there was any such settlement about maintenance. In her evidence she stated that it was false that she was paid Rs. 2.000 in full and final settlement of her claim for maintenance. There is also a dispute raised by her about the customary divorce. According to the respondents No. 1, it was taken by force for which a case was preferred under section 384 of the I. P. C. in which the petitioner was convicted. That the revision of the petitioner is pending in this Court against the order of his conviction. However, whether there was a valid divorce or not, the said question is not relevant in the proceedings under Sec. 125 Cr. P. C. because even a divorced wife is covered by the definition of the word 'wife' given in clause (b) of the Explanation under section,125 (1) of the Cr. P.C.

(3.) As regards the full and final settlement of the claim for maintenance, the document on which reliance is placed viz the divorce deed is not filed by the petitioner in these proceedings. The petitioner has failed to prove the contents thereof by leading appropriate evidence in that regard. The learned Sessions Judge. has, therefore, rightly rejected the above contention on behalf of the petitioner and has, therefore, rightly held.that the petitioner has failed to show that he had really made such a provision in the divorce deed. In the absence of any material, the Courts were right in holding that the said contention is not proved by the petitioner. The above contention raised on behalf of the petitioner must, therefore, fail.