SUSHIL KUMAR Vs. MAYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 01.12.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal as well as order dated 16.12.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby, petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the respondent has been accepted and appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of delay and maintainability as well as on merits without going into facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that the petitioner was being harassed by the respondent, who was already married to one Daya Ram. Petitioner is already married having two sons and has retired from Bank. The respondent remained together for some time with the petitioner but no marriage was solemnized between them and despite that the respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming herself to be a legally wedded wife of petitioner eventhough, there is no divorce from her husband Daya Ram. Respondent Maya Devi and her daughter Preeti had filed a petition for grant of maintenance before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal on the ground that she is legally wedded wife of the present petitioner. She has urged that they were married on 04.08.1999 and remained together as husband and wife but no child was born. It was mentioned in the petition itself that she was earlier married to one Daya Ram and a female child, namely, Preeti was born out of the said wedlock and thereafter they got divorce on 27.01.1994. After that, respondent got married with the present petitioner on 04.08.1999. Written statement was filed. The petition filed by the respondent -wife was allowed on 01.12.2010 and the petitionerhusband was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2500/ - per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the petition and her daughter Preeti was not found entitled to claim any maintenance. Aggrieved by order dated 01.12.2010, petitioner -husband filed appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal but the same was dismissed being time barred and after hearing on merits as well on 16.12.2014.

(3.) THE present petition has been filed by the petitionerhusband to challenge both the orders passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal as well as Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal.