DURGA PRASAD ALIAS THAKUR SINGH Vs. MANKUMAR BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant/husband has directed this revision under section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 7.3.2012 passed by the JMFC, Udaipura district Raisen in MJC No.38/06 whereby allowing the application of the respondent filed under section 125 of the Cr.P.C, the applicant has been directed to pay her Rs.400/ - per month from the date of the impugned order as maintenance.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the respondent herein filed the impugned application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C contending that she got married with the applicant I n accordance with the Hindu rites and rituals on dated 23.5.82 at village Didhawan. Thereafter, she resided with the applicant for five years in matrimonial home. It is further stated that from the beginning of the marriage she was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry by the applicant and she was also subjected to beating on such count. After five years from the date of marriage and before 15 years from the date of filing the aforesaid application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C, after carrying out her beating, the applicant ousted her from the matrimonial home and since then she is residing at village Didhawan. Inspite making efforts by the respondent to go to matrimonial home to reside with the applicant, she was not permitted by the applicant to come and reside with him and in the lifetime of the respondent, he got married again with some Parwati Bai of village Pipariya district Hoshangabad. In last 15 years, the applicant neglected her and she was not given a single penny even for her livelihood and maintenance. It is also stated that said Parwati Bai was already married with some Jagdish Maithli from whom she did not take any divorce in accordance with law and without taking any divorce started to reside with the applicant and therefore she should not be treated to be the valid wife of the applicant. It is further stated that the respondent did not have any source of income and also did not possess any property for her livelihood while the applicant has sufficient agricultural land and other source of income. With these averments prayer for appropriate direction to the applicant to pay her Rs.3000/ - per month as maintenance was made.

(3.) IN reply of the respondent by denying the averments of the application of section 125 of the Cr.P.C, in additional, it is stated that the applicant got married with Parwati Bai before 22 years and out of their wedlock, they have been blessed with two children and, in such premises, the respondent is not his valid wife. It is further stated that the applicant does not have his own personal property but he is having the joint agricultural land along with his father and also carry out the agricultural activities on the land of some other person for his livelihood. It is also stated that after getting married with Parwati Bai before 22 years when he was not blessed with a child then after leaving Parwati Bai at her parental home, he brought to the respondent at his home and thereafter for some time the respondent resided with him as his wife. Thereafter Parwati Bai also came in the family but she was not ready to give divorce to the applicant. With these averments, the prayer for dismissal of the application was made.