MANJUBAI Vs. PADMASINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 19(4) Family Court Act, 1984 read with Sec. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being crestfallen by the order dtd. 5/8/2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Neemuch in M.J.C. No. 52/2018, whereby the learned Family Court has rejected the application filed under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C on the ground that applicant/wife has failed to prove that she being the legal wife of the respondent/husband is liable to receive the maintenance and awarded the maintenance of Rs.5000.00 per month to daughter Nisha till the attaining the age of majority or till her marriage.

(2.) The fact in brief are that the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance and pleaded that in the year 2005, marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with one daughter Nisha. Thereafter the respondent and his family members started harassing her for not fulfilling their demand of dowry also tortured by giving taunts for giving birth a daughter as they were expecting a son. The respondent has agricultural land, business of opium and business of property sell-purchase from which he earns Rs.50,000.00 per month. The applicant is only a homemaker and is an unemployed person, therefore, she has filed application under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance which has been dismissed by the Family Court, therefore, this revision has been filed by the applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the trial Court has not considered all aspects of the case and not appreciated the evidence available on record. The petitioner No. 1 is an uneducated lady. From the year 2019, she was residing at her mother's house. He also submits that the petitioner No. 1 is liable to get maintenance from respondent, being a wife and as she is compelled by respondent to live separately because of mental and physical cruelty. The respondent has agricultural land, business of opium and business of property sell-purchase from which he earns Rs.50,000.00 per month. It is further expostulated that since petitioner No. 1 has not known someone named Mohansingh, she cannot be treated as illegitimate wife of respondent. As such, the second marriage of Manjubai with respondent/Padamsingh Singh cannot be treated as illegitimate marriage. In this way, she cannot be precluded to get maintenance from respondent. Hence, learned counsel has prayed to set aside the impugned order and revision may kindly be allowed and order of family Court be set aside by awarding maintenance to the petitioner/wife.