GULENDRA Vs. TABASSUM AND OTHERS.

JUDGEMENT

(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.