GAJRAJ Vs. FULKUNWAR BAI ALIAS FULWATI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order dated 17-7-2001 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore, in Criminal Revision No. 167 of 1999, whereby the order dated 3-8-1999 granting maintenance to non-applicants passed in Misc. Cr. Case No. 60 of 1998 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sehore, was confirmed.

(2.) IN short, the facts of the case are that non-applicant No. 1 Fulkunwar Bai, filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, claiming maintenance of Rs. 1000/- per month for her from the applicant. According to Fulkunwar Bai, she was married to the applicant by way of Natra as per the prevailing customs. She had gone to the house of the applicant and lived with him for a short period but when the applicant started consuming liquor and beating and harassing her under intoxication, she left his house and alongwith his brother went to her brother's house. After some time the applicant brought her back but because of some differences and without any sufficient cause abandoned her. Despite notices given by her, he did not turn up and did not take her with him. It was said that her husband Gajraj's income from the agriculture was Rs. 1,00,000/- per year and he also earned about Rs. 2,500/- per month by labour work. She also claimed that while living with Gajraj she conceived and in due course gave birth to a son viz. , Liladhar, non-applicant No. 2.

(3.) THE claim of the non-applicants was controverted by the applicant. He refuted the allegations made against him. He denied that under spell of liquor he manhandled or abused the non-applicant, In his reply, he specifically asserted that the non-applicant No. 1 was already married and without obtaining divorce from her previous husband, she had come to his house alongwith her father and brother. H stated that at the time of alleged Natra it was represented by Fulkunwar's father that the divorce had been obtained, but, he came to know, on inquiry, that the non-applicant had not obtained the divorce from her previous husband. Hence, he did not agree to keep the non-applicant with him. In the aforesaid circumstances, he denied his liability to pay the maintenance to her and also to non-applicant No. 2, Liladhar, who, according to him, was not his son.