GUNDWANT PANDAGRE Vs. MEERABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judicial Magistrate First Class, Betul vide his order 29.11.1983 passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 141 of 1981 allowed the application made by Meerabai and her minor daughter Rekha under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered Gundwant Pendagre to pay a monthly allowance of Rs. 125/- (Rs. 75.00 + 50.00) to them for their maintenance with effect from the date of the application i e. 20.8.1981. It is being aggrieved by the said order that Gund want Pendagre has filed the present revision in this Court.

(2.) It was apparent from the evidence produced in the case that though Meerabai had married Gundwant Pendagre in Pat form on 9.7.1980, the said married was void for the reason that Gundwant Pendagres previous marriage with one Sayabai was still subsisting. In fact, as per Meerabais own admission, Sayabai continued loving with Gundwant Pendagre even after Meerabais so called marriage in Pat form with him.

(3.) It was not that Gundwant Pendagre had not tried to raise the above said point with regard to invalidity of the marriage in his pleadings. He had made an application on 5.3.1982 to make the appropriate amendment in his pleadings in the above regard. The said application was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate vide his order dated 30.3.1982. In fact, the Judicial Magistrate was informed by the counsel for Meerabai on 208.1982 that Meerabai did not want to file any reply to the amendment. It is true that the amendment remained to be formally incorporated in the pleadings of Gundwant Pendagre. But, then, as the amendment had been allowed under the inherent powers of the Court and there was no provision similar to Order 6 Rules 17 and 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Code of Criminal Procedure, mere failure on the part of Gundwant Pendagre to amend his pleadings after order did not preclude him from relying on the amendment. The reason was that from a perusal of the evidence produced in the case it was obvious that both the parties were alive to the fact of the amendment in question having been allowed by the Court and adduced their evidence on that basis. Thus, no material prejudice having been caused in the matter to Meerabai, it was surprising why the Judicial Magistrate did not consider the point with regard to invalidity of the marriage in its order dated 29.11. 1983.