LAWS(HPH)-2016-6-241

AJAY KUMAR Vs. RITA DEVI

Decided On June 24, 2016
AJAY KUMAR Appellant
V/S
RITA DEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against order dated 20.10.2008 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Revision Petition No. 10-B/X-2006 vide which, the learned Revisional Court has set aside order dated 25.02.2006 passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baijnath, District Kangra in Petition No. 99-IV/2004 and directed the present petitioner to pay to the respondent/applicant maintenance @ Rs. 800/- per month w.e.f. 15.07.2004.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of presence case are that wife of present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the applicant') filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. before the learned trial Court claiming maintenance from the respondent therein. The case put forth by the applicant was that she was wife of respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 06.07.1998 at Village Ghartholi according to Hindu rites and customs. As per the applicant, the present petitioner and his family members started maltreating her immediately after the marriage on the ground of bringing insufficient dowry. They used to ask for precious items like refrigerator. After six months of marriage, she was forced to leave the matrimonial house and since then she is living with her parents. Her parents tried to solve the matter amicably, but the petitioner refused to keep the applicant and also threatened to marry another woman. As per the applicant, the petitioner is living with another woman, named Lalita Devi, D/o Madho Ram since 27.02.2004 after marrying her and he was neglecting to maintain the applicant without any reasonable cause. He was also not paying any maintenance to her. As per the applicant, the petitioner was working as a Mason and was earning an amount of Rs. 6000/- per month. According to the applicant, she was neglected and refused to be maintained by the petitioner. Therefore, she was entitled for the grant of maintenance allowance.

(3.) The husband in the reply so filed by him denied the factum of applicant being his wife. As per him, he was married to Lalita Devi as per Hindu rites and customs on 25.11.1997. The applicant was not his legally wedded wife and therefore, according to him, there was no question of paying any maintenance to her.