RADHESYAM Vs. PUSHPKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred this revision against the order dated 9.4.2008 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge Betul in Criminal Revision No.1 of 2008 whereby a sum of Rs.1000/- was granted as maintenance to the respondent whereas the JMFC Betul (Shri Girish Dixit) in MJC No.149/2006 vide order dated 19.12.2007 has dismissed the maintenance application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The facts of the case are that, the respondent moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C that the marriage of the respondent took place with the present applicant in Arya Samaj Temple on 10.9.2001. After sometime a forceful abortion was done to the respondent and thereafter, the applicant started residing inadultery with one woman Sapna and therefore, the respondent was bound to live separately and therefore, she claimed a sum of Rs.3000/- as maintenance.

(3.) The applicant denied the application of the respondent. It was pleaded that she was living separately without any reason. The applicant was not living with any woman. He has to look after his parents, brothers and sisters and therefore, it was prayed that the application may be dismissed.