KHILAN DEVI Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed against the judgment and order dated 10th of January, 1992 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge of Bhind, whereby the revision of the non-petitioner was allowed and the order of the Trial Court granting maintenance to the petitioner was set aside. The application of the petitioner for grant of maintenance Under Section 125 Cr. P. C. was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be the wife of the non-petitioner. She had filed an application for maintenance Under Section 125 Cr. P. C. which was allowed by the Magistrate, granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month. Against that order a revision was preferred before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge of Bhind which was allowed and the petition of the petitioner Under Section 125 Cr. P. C. was dismissed.

(3.) THE petitioner claims to be the wife of the non-petitioner. She was married with the non-petitioner sometime in the year 1954. She was living with the non-petitioner for quite sometime. She had no issue. Thereafter, the non-petitioner and was compelled to leave the house of the non-petitioner is said to have married with another lady and had four issues with her. According to the petitioner she was being ill treated by the second wife of the non-petitioner. She went to the house of her parents and lived there. She could not tolerate living for sometime, when her parents and brothers were maintaining her. Thereafter she had no means to maintain herself and then she applied for maintenance Under Section 125 Cr. P. C. The Trial Court had recorded the evidence and came to the conclusion that the marriage was proved on record which has been avoided by the non-petitioner. The Trial Court had also found that the petitioner was entitled to claim maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month from the date of the order. The application was allowed accordingly. In revision, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge found that the marriage was not properly proved. He had found that the petitioner herself had delayed her claim for several years and on that account, she was not entitled to claim maintenance. The revision was accordingly allowed and the application of the petitioner Under Section 125 Cr. P. C. was dismissed.