LAXMI YADAV Vs. BARELAL YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is before this Court for challenging the order dated 3.6.2015 passed in Misc. Cri.Case No.43/2015 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivpuri, whereby the Family Court has rejected the application under Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the 'CrPC) on the ground that the applicant has failed to establish the matrimonial relations between the applicant and respondent.

(2.) The facts necessary for adjudication of the present revision application are that the applicant claims to be married with the respondent before the Public Notary on 14.3.2011. According to the applicant, the marriage is as per the tradition followed by the parties and the respondent, at the time of entering into the marriage with the applicant, assured her and her mother that he would keep the applicant as lawfully wedded wife and will take care of all her necessities but the respondent turned back on his promise and started harassing the applicant and also took away the cattle (60 cows) worth Rs.6.00 lacs belonging to her mother without her consent. According to the applicant, after such misappropriation of property belonging to her mother, the respondent became more aggressive and started abusing her physically. Consequently, the applicant was expelled from the house of the respondent on the pretext that the applicant was not fulfilling the demand of money made by the respondent which, according to her, can only be fulfilled after selling the agricultural land belonging to her month (sic:mother), thereafter the applicant has started residing with her month (sic:mother) and since the applicant was known as the wife of the respondent and they were residing for a considerable period of time as husband-wife, she moved an application under Section 125 of CrPC for grant of maintenance to enable the applicant to meet her expenses, as she cannot remain dependent on her mother.

(3.) The respondent was invited by Family Court to file his reply in which it was categorically stated that the applicant is not legally wedded wife of the respondent; in fact, the story of marriage which has been narrated by her, is false as the applicant has already married to one Mukesh and, therefore, without divorce with Mukesh she cannot enter into the second marriage. He further submitted that the applicant gained access to the house of the respondent on account of some common relative and started living there for some period but lateron she claimed to be wife of the respondent. According to him, the document which is notarised and has been placed on record was signed by the respondent under pressure of the applicant and common relative. He also submitted that the fact of the first marriage is clearly mentioned in the document produced by the applicant. Although it is indicated that the parties have served their matrimonial ties and that she is residing with her mother.