RAM BAHORE SAKET Vs. SHEELA @ ASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JMFC Rewa (Shri Rupesh Kumar Mandil) vide order dated 27.12.2006 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 25/2006 dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants before the Trial Court/non -applicants at present. In criminal revision No. 33/2007, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa vide order dated 15.12.2007 accepted the revision in a partial manner and granted maintenance of Rs. 700 per month to the non -applicant No. 2 Aneesh Kumar Saket. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, the applicant/non -applicant before the Magisterial Court has preferred this revision.

(2.) THE application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants before the Trial Court, in short, is that the applicant No. 1 Sheela (c) Asha @ Gujratia was married to one Mangal Saket. The non -applicant Ram Bahore was husband of the sister of Mangal Saket. Mangal Saket has expired in a motor accident and, therefore, the applicant No, 1 Sheela could get the compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. The non -applicant proposed her for marriage to usurp the compensation amount received by her and, therefore, in January, 1997, the non -applicant and applicant No. 1 had performed their marriage in Sharda Temple, Maihar in presence of relatives. The non -applicant was maintaining the applicant No. 1 and her children. In the month of September, 2000, the applicant No. 2 was born and in the meantime, the entire compensation amount was spent. Thereafter, the non -applicant started misbehaviour with the applicant No. 1 and, ultimately, she was thrown out of the house on 27.7.2002. In the application, she had prayed for a maintenance of Rs. 1,500 for herself and Rs. 1,500 for her child i.e. applicant No. 2.

(3.) LEARNED Judicial Magistrate, First Class after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants. However, in criminal revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that though the marriage of the applicant No. 1 was not valid with the non -applicant No. 1 and therefore, she could not get any maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., but the applicant No. 2 was a child born to the applicant and non -applicant No. 1 and, therefore, he was entitled to get the maintenance and, therefore, the impugned order was passed.