DINESH MOURYA Vs. ASHU MOURYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/non-applicant filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the code of criminal procedure to set aside the order dated 24.05.2019 passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in M.Cr.C. No. 509/2014 whereby learned First Additional Principal Judge, Bhopal allowed the petition presented by the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and petitioner/non-applicant is directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs. 2500/- per month to the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 each.

(2.) Case of respondent No.1 in short is that the respondent No. 1 has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in which she mentioned that the marriage of respondent No.1 was solemnized with the petitioner/non-applicant on 22.11.2011. Before marriage, respondent No.1 and petitioner were live in relationship and blessed with one child also i.e. respondent No.2. After some time, petitioner/non-applicant used to abuse and beat her in drunken condition and also compelled the respondents No. 1 to consume liquor. He also assassinated her character. The Petitioner/non-applicant deserted the respondent No.1 and also taken appliance installed in the house of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 has no source of income. Petitioner has sufficient means of income. Therefore, respondents are entitled to get maintenance to the petitioner.

(3.) In reply the petitioner denied all the allegation levelled against him stating that the they have never performed marriage and the respondent No. 1 never lived with him as a wife. He also stated that he had not committed any cruelty towards the respondent No.1. He further stated that the respondent No.1 belongs to Muslim religion and her marriage was performed with one Mehmood Khan on 22.11.2011 and since then the respondent No. 1 is residing with him as a wife. He has also produced documents of her Nikah. He also submitted before the Family Court, the respondent No. 1 was blessed with one male child, who has died and he has produced receipt of cemetery. He also stated that he is already married having two children and on account of grab money, the respondent No. 1 has filed false case.