MANOJ KUMAR Vs. SMT. BABITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . By this criminal revision under Section 394/401 of Cr.P.C. the applicant is praying for setting aside the order dated 6.1.2011, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 88/09, whereby the learned Family Court awarded maintenance to the non -applicant @ Rs. 1200/ -per month with simple interest @ 9% per annum.

(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed on the ground that no marriage of the applicant was performed with the non -applicant on 5.12.2007. It is also submitted that the non -applicant is not the legally married wife of the applicant and, therefore, in view of the law laid down by various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Naresh Chandra v/s Reshma Bai & Others ( : 1992 MPLJ 58), Sumitra Devi v/s Bhikan Choudhary ( : 1985 Cri.L.J. 528), Ramkumar Manharan Sahu v/s Smt Meena Sahu [2010 Cri.L.J. (NOC) 80 (Chh.)], Smt. Yamunabai v/s Anantrao & others ( : 1988 Cri.L.J. 793) & Angoori Devi v/s State of U.P. ( : 2010 Cri.L.J. 2772), it is submitted that the non -applicant is not entitled for any maintenance from the applicant, however, the Court below committed an error in entertaining the application and deciding the same against the applicant. He also drew my attention to the statements of AW1 Babita, AW2 Pt. Prem Giri, AW3 Kanhaiyalal (father -in -law of the applicant) and DW5 Rahul, a photographer and submitted that the impugned order be set aside and this revision application be allowed.

(3.) ON due consideration of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the learned Additional Principal Family Court has not committed any illegality or material irregularity to interfere with the order passed on 6.1.2011. If the applicant wants any declaration that no marriage was performed with the non -applicant on 5.12.2007 then he can take appropriate steps in accordance with law by filing a suit for declaration against the non -applicant. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the revision filed by the applicant has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Since no one is appearing on behalf of the non -applicant, no cost is awarded.