NARAYANI BAI & OTHERS Vs. ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants are calling in question the order dated 09.01.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mungaoli, District Ashoknagar in Criminal Revision No.73/2012, whereby the revisional Court set aside the order dated 11.07.2012 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungaoli in Criminal M.J.C.No.22/2010 and dismissed the application for granting interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for brevity the 'Cr.P.C.').

(2.) The facts which have led to filing of present application are that the marriage was solemnized between the applicant No.1 and the respondent ten years ago as per Hindu rituals and customs. The applicants No.2 to 4 are the daughter and sons born out of the wed lock of applicant No.1 and the respondent. According to the application filed by the applicant No.1, the respondent and his family members were persistently making demand of dowry and she was mentally and physically tortured. The respondent has illicit relationship with the lady named Reena Bai and when the applicant No.1 opposed their relationship, then he showed the door to the present applicant No.1. The applicant No.1 has pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself and her children. Therefore, an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. has been filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungaoli in order to get maintenance from the respondent. An another application was filed on behalf of the applicant No.1 for granting interim maintenance. Learned Magistrate while deciding the application for fixation of interim maintenance till final disposal of the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. granted interim maintenance as total Rs.2500/- against which the revision petition was filed before the Sessions Court which was allowed and the order of granting interim maintenance passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungaoli has been set aside. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Court, the present revision petition has been preferred.

(3.) The grounds canvassed by the applicants in the instant revision application are that the revisional Court has committed error by dismissing the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for seeking interim maintenance in favour of the respondent as the applicant No.1 did not have any source to maintain herself and her children. The applicant No.1 has proved the allegations made against the respondent by filing the affidavit in support of his application whereas no counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent. Therefore, the applicants are entitled to receive the interim maintenance amount.