RAJKUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. SARIKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 19(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being crestfallen by the order dtd. 7/1/2020 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.J.C. No. 813/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has awarded the maintenance of Rs.27,000.00 in favour of respondent/Sarika from the date of order i.e. 7/1/2020.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the marriage was solemnized between petitioner and respondent on 13/7/2013. Before this marriage, the respondent No. 1 had been married with one Manish Gupta at Khargone. Manish Gupta was a government servant. When respondent No. 1 got pregnant and told her husband Manish Gupta, he disclosed that he has already married, his wife name is Naveena Sutar, so the marriage between them is illicit. The respondent No. 1 gave birth a son namely Prakhar/respondent No. 2. Her husband Manish Gupta abandoned her saying that "nothing is remained to be continued between us, I took marriage with her with my interest" Meanwhile, brother of the respondent No. 1, uploaded information regarding respondent No. 1/wife and respondent No. 2/Son on internet.

(3.) On that information, the petitioner and his family contacted respondent No. 1 and informed her that the petitioner's wife has expired and now, he has two unmarried daughters, he has one house, in which one shop is situated, also a shop of jewellery in Sarafa " Krishnafirm ", Rs.50,000.00 to Rs.60,000.00 earning is there from this shop. An apartment was also given on rent, from all sources, petitioner is earning Rs.1,50,000.00 per month. The petitioner and his family was informed about marriage of respondent No. 1/wife that respondent No. 1/wife was married with one Manish Gupta, but as Manish Gupta was already married, the marriage was null and void, hence, divorce decree could not be taken and respondent No. 1/wife was residing at home for last 8 years. The condition was put before the petitioner that he has to give his name as father to the respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 got married with each other on 13/7/2013. The respondent No. 1 started residing with petitioner alongwith petitioner's two daughters in Jaipur. The petitioner said to her, she has no need for any maintenance, so that, she could not attend the hearing of the case for recording her statement which was filed by her against Manish Gupta. The petitioner gave his name to respondent No. 2.