HARIPAL Vs. SATILA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred the present petition under Section 482 of Cr P C against the order dated 4.12.2010 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge Rewa in criminal revision No. 125/2008, in which the order dated 27.8.2007 passed by the JMFC (Shri Rakesh Kumar Sharma), Rewa in MJC No. 84/2006 was modified and the maintenance, which was granted to the respondent No. 2 by the Trial Court was modified that it should be given from the date of application i.e. from 30.8.1993 and also it is provided that in each year, the maintenance shall automatically increased @ 10% per annum. Admitted facts of the case in short are that the respondents have filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court for grant of maintenance on 30.8.1993. Thereafter, that application was dismissed in nonappearance. An application under Order 9 Rule 9 of me CPC was moved but it was not accepted. Ultimately, in criminal revision No. 187/03, the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa vide order dated 30.5.2005 allowed the revision and application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was restored. After recording the evidence of the parties, the JMFC has refused to grant any maintenance to the respondent No. 1 and her children the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 born to the respondent No. 1 and her previous husband Ghurau. However, the maintenance of Rs. 700 per month was granted to the respondent No. 2 from the date of order.

(2.) Facts of the case in short are that, the respondent No. 1 Satila was married with Ghurau, but after his death, she was married to the applicant and the respondent No. 2 Dhirendra had borne. However, the applicant ousted the respondent No. 1 along with her children and therefore, the maintenance application was moved.

(3.) The applicant in his reply denied the claim. He took a plea that no marriage of the respondent No. 1 took place with the applicant and the applicant was already married and being wife of cousin of the applicant, she continued to reside with the applicant. He denied that the respondent No. 2 was borne to the respondent No. 1 due to the applicant.