GOPAL SINGH Vs. KRISHNABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant-husband has questioned the order dated 12. 2. 2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Shujalpur in Crl. Revision No. 174/99 arising out of the order passed in M. Cr. C. No. 21/98 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shujalpur on 20. 8. 1999 reversing the order of the Trial Court regarding refusal of maintenance to the wife/non-applicant No. 1 and son/non-applicant No. 2, by filing this revision petition.

(2.) THE non-applicants had filed an application for grant of maintenance on the ground that the non-applicant No. 1 is the legally married wife of the applicant and after marriage out of their wedlock, non-applicant No. 1 Ravikumar born. The applicant was illtreating her for demand of dowry. When the non-applicant was pregnant, as per customs she was taken for her delivery by her father from her matrimonial house. The non-applicant Ravi Kumar born at the house of her father. After the birth of non-applicant No. 2, the applicant-father did not take any care of the non-applicants. Therefore, they filed an application Under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. for grant of maintenance which was, after contest by the parties, dismissed by the Court below against which the non-applicants went up in revision and the lower Revisional Court allowed the same directing payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 400/- to each of the non-applicants.

(3.) THE contention of the Counsel for the applicant is that there was a mutual divorce between the applicant and non-applicant No. 1 regarding which the document Ex. P/1 was written on 29. 4. 1993. It has also been contended by the Counsel for the applicant that the non-applicant No. 1 was not his son and he has born after more than one and half years of leaving his house by his wife/non-applicant No. 1. The Counsel has also raised grievance about the" document Ex. D/2 showing earning of the non-applicant No. 1. This is a document shown to be issued by the Project Officer, Child Development Project, Shujalpur. According to the applicant, non-applicant was working as Aanganwadi worker and drawing Rs. 350/- as honorarium. Counsel for the applicant is relying on the judgments reported in AIR 1982 SC 1057, AIR 1980 SC 1259, AIR 1967 SC 1269, AIR 1981 SC 1481, and AIR 1971 SC 173. Her contention is that Ex. D/2 is a public document and without proving the same, it should not have been admitted and considered as legal evidence. For the date of birth of non-applicant No. 2, his horoscope was filed, but the same is not showing the date of birth of the non-applicant No. 2.