ROSHAN SINGH NEPALI Vs. MEENA NEPALI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall govern the disposal of I.A. No.3511/2014, an application filed on behalf of proposed applicant Smt. Bhagwati Singh, as alleged widow of revisionist Roshan Singh under Section 394(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, here-in-after referred to "the Code", to substitute her name at the place of the revisionist Roshan Singh and permit her to prosecute this revision which was filed by the revisionist Roshan Singh in his life time on dated 22. 09. 2005. Also disposed of I.A. No.12502/2014, second application filed by Smt. Bhagwati Singh under section 394(2) read with Section 482 of the Code, which is repetition of facts of I.A. No. 3511/2014 with same relief.

(2.) The case of the respondents before the Family Court, Jabalpur was that in the year 1992 the marriage was solemnized between Roshan Singh and respondent No.1 and on 10.08.1993 the respondent No.2 was born. But, in the year 1993, Roshan Singh left respondent No.1 and never takes care of respondents. Roshan Singh also developed illegal relation with Bhagwati Bai. The respondent No.1 wishes to live with Roshan Singh, but, he refused and demanded Rs. 25,000/- as dowry. On 25.10.1993 an application was filed by Roshan Singh for marriage with Bhagwati Bai before the appropriate authority, respondent No.1 raised objection also sent a demand notice on 28.10.1993 for maintenance from Roshan Singh.

(3.) Roshan Singh entered his appearance by filing reply and denied the above mentioned averments of the respondents stating that the respondents have filed this application for maintenance on false and concocted grounds. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 is not his wife because he never married with her and also denied that the respondent No.2 is his son. It is also mentioned that Bhagwati Bai is his wife and in support of it, marriage certificate also filed duly issued by appropriate Samiti. Couple has one daughter Harsha Singh and son Rohan Singh. He has been retired from services and he is getting only Rs. 2,000/- per month as pension, hence maintenance application filed by the respondents deserves to be rejected.