TARACHAND VISHWAKARMA Vs. PUSHPA DEVI VISHWAKARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 21.2.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in MJC No.605/2009. whereby a maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m. was granted to the respondent alongwith a cost of Rs.1,000/-.

(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are that, the respondent moved an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. that she came into the contact of the applicant in the year 1988. In July, 1989, marriage of the respondent took place with the applicant in a temple. She resided as wife of the applicant upto December, 2005. Thereafter, the applicant started misbehaviour with the respondent and therefore, a compromise deed was executed on 6.1.2006 for alimony till the life-time of the respondent but, after giving the alimony for few months, the applicant stopped the payment and therefore, an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated.

(3.) The applicant in his reply denied the application. He pleaded that Mooratlal Vishwakarma, the first husband of the respondent is alive and no divorce took place between the respondent and her husband. No marriage ceremony took place between the parties. The applicant was an old aged person and the respondent was a house maid, who was a domestic assistant with the applicant. However, the applicant was kind enough to pay a sum of Rs.600/- p.m. to the respondent. It was paid through her brother Mukesh Vishwakarma but, after sometime the respondent refused to receive the sum, though the amount was sent by the money order. Compromise as submitted by the respondent is forged one. The respondent had a female child from her husband and she performed the marriage of her daughter at Bhopal on her own. She did not inform the applicant about that marriage, which shows that there was no relation of husband and wife between the parties. The applicant is burdened with expenditure of his younger son and his children. In meager amount of his pension, he is unable to pay any maintenance to the respondent and therefore, he prayed that the application may be dismissed.