PUSHPABAI Vs. PRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER wife has filed this revision under Section 397, Cr. P. C. against the judgment and order dated 15. 4. 1997 passed by A. S. J. , Kukshi, Dist. Dhar in Cri. Revision No. 37/97 setting aside the order passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Glass, Kukshi in Cri. Case No. 44/94 granting maintenance allowance @ Rs. 50/-per month to the petitioner-wife.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated that on 7. 10. 1994 petitioner filed an application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. for claiming maintenance from the respondent Pratapsingh. In this application the petitioner claimed that she is married wife of the respondent. After solemnizing the marriage, petitioner resided with the respondent but on 4th August, 1992 the respondent removed the applicant from his house. She is not having any independent source of income. The respondent is a teacher, earning around Rs. 4,000/- per month, besides this also earning some amount from tuitions. In reply the respondent denied all the allegations including the fact of marriage and has submitted that petitioner is not his legally married wife. The Trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties by order dated 26. 12. 1996 found that the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. She is not having any means to maintain herself, therefore, Court directed for the payment of Rs. 500/- p. m. as maintenance from the date of his application elated 7. 10. 1994 against which the husband preferred the revision before the Court below. In the revision memo the submission of the respondent was that the petitioner was earlier married with one Bhanwarlal and she has not taken any divorce and she has not proved that any divorce has taken place, therefore, it cannot be presumed that she is the legally married wife of the respondent because without divorce she cannot re-marry again. The respondent further submitted in this memo of revision that though the petitioner wanted to marry with the respondent and for that the respondent has no objection but since the respondent is in Government service he cannot take the risk of keeping her with him. The further submission of respondent in this memo of revision is that in the Court on 26. 5. 1995, respondent had made a proposal that if the petitioner shall bring an affidavit of her earlier husband Bhanwarlal about the fact of divorce then he will accept this petitioner as his wife, because still Bhanwarlal is treating the petitioner as his married wife. On these facts the lower Revisional Court accepted the submissions of the respondent and allowed the revision and set aside the impugned order for grant of maintenance.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for parties and perused the record and also gone through the judgments and orders of both the Courts below.