(1.) This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 06.05.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Criminal Revision No. 1700048/2015 whereby Additional Sessions Judge affirmed the order dated 03.03.2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parasiya, Chhindwara in M. Cr.C. No. 97/11 in which ACJM Paraisya directed the petitioner/non-applicant to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to respondent-complainant no. 1 and Rs. 2000/- per month to respondents no. 2 and 3 each as maintenance.
(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are that respondent no. 1- complainant filed a petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is alleged that marriage of respondent no. 1 Tabassum was solemnized on 24.04.1998 with petitioner/non-applicant, thereafter respondent no. 1 was blessed with three children Rayma, Alfiza and Ubesh, thereafter petitioner/non-applicant solemnized second marriage with one Sarika Rai on 20.04.2001. Petitioner/ non-applicant left the respondent-complainant without any reasonable cause and petitioner/non-applicant has taken Rayma from respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 has no source of income but petitioner/non-applicant has sufficient source of income. So petitioner/ non-applicant is liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondents.
(3.) Petitioner/non-applicant filed reply before the trial court. It is alleged by him that parents of respondent-complainant no. 1 is not ready to accept the marriage of non-applicant/petitioner and respondent no. 1/complainant because it is a inter-caste marriage, so on 27.07.1999 divorce deed was executed by both the parties and both parties had taken divorce. Petitioner/non-applicant has paid Rs. 50,000/- as maintenance to the respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 2 and 3 are not his children because petitioner /non-applicant had no relation with complainant-respondent no. 1 since 1999. Respondent no.1/complainant has already filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is alleged in that petition that petitioner/non-applicant is a labour and his earning is Rs. 5000/- per month although complainant- respondent no. 1 alleged in her previous petition that petitioner/ non-applicant is earning Rs. 10,000/- per month from money laundering business but in this petition respondent no.1-complainant alleged that petitioner's income is 33, 00,000/- So petitioner/non-applicant does not have sufficient means of income. He has not solemnized another marriage. He has other responsibilities so he is not liable to pay any maintenance to the respondent-complainant.