SUNITA Vs. SANT RAM GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition, filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is to the order, dated 28.02.2013, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Panchkula, whereby Criminal Revision No.20 of 2012 preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula, dismissing her application under Section 125, Cr.P.C., was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel contends that there is no dispute that the petitioner had solemnized the marriage with the respondent on 03.08.1990 in Arya Samaj Mandir, Parwanoo, according to Hindu Customs and rites. At that time, the earlier husband of the petitioner was alive and no legal divorce was obtained from her earlier husband. However, he submits that for several years, the respondent lived with the petitioner as her husband and cohabited with her and thereafter he refused to maintain the petitioner and, as such, despite the fact that the petitioner was earlier married would not debar her from seeking monthly maintenance from the respondent. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and another, 2011 1 SCC 141.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Indra Sarma vs. V. K. V. Sarma, 2014 1 RCR(Cri) 179; Narayan Jangluji Thool and ors vs. Mala, 2015 3 RCR(Cri) 413 ; and Suman Kumari vs Harbans Lal, 1998 2 RCR(Cri) 661 to say that the petitioner was not legally married wife of the respondent and, as such, she cannot claim maintenance as per Section 125, Cr.P.C. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.