PANNA LAL Vs. MANOJ AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two cases; one was filed as Cr. Misc. Petition No. 659/98 by Panna Lal Under section 482 Crimial P.C. and the other is Cr. Revision Petition No. 549/98 (Def.) by Smt. Manbhar Under section 397 CrP.C. in which defect was that the certified copy of the order dated 15.3.96 was not filed. The office put the case on the defect side on 17.2.99. It was ordered that two weeks' time is granted to remove the defects, failing, which the petition shall stand dismissed but the petitioner filed an application on 24.1.99 that the photo state copy of the order was filed but inspite of all efforts, certified copy could not be obtained as the file of the trial court was not traceable. It was also stated in this petition that the order was not challenged, therefore, the to submission of the certified copy of order dated 15.3.96 be dispensed with. I find that this revision petition Smt. Manbhar Vs. Panna Lal challenges the order of 18th April, 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi and not the order of learned Magistrate dated 15.3.96. Therefore, it will be proper to allow this application. Apart from it, it may be stated that the file of the trial court was received in this court and hence the statement that file was not traceable in the court concerned is correct. Submission of the copy is dispensed with. The defect stands removed. The petition be registered as regular revision petition. It may also be stated that this Court vide order dated 31.8.2000 ordered that the revision petition be listed along with Cr Misc. Petition No. 659/98 and similarly on 29.8.2000 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 659/98, it was ordered that the case be listed with Provision Petition No. 549/98. Hence, both the cases have come together before this Court for decision. Relevant facts may be stated as follows:-

(2.) Smt. Manbhar alleges that she was married to Panna Lal, petitioner and was his wife. She gave birth to a child named Manoj on 1.12.93 but it so happened before that Panna Lal kicked her out from his house. She was admitted in hospital where Manoj was born. Panna Lal came to know about it but he did not come even to see his son nor he gave any money for the maintenance to the wife or son though he has 50 to 55 bighas of land and his yearly income was Rs. 60,000.00 to Rs. 70,000.00. It was prayed that Manoj be given maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 400.00 while Smt. Manbhar be given Rs. 500.00. This petition was filed before Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Bundi as long back as on 16.2.94. The case of husband Panna Lal was that Smt. Manbhar was not his wife nor Manoj was born out of this wedlock. Panna Lal did not know Smt. Manbhar at all nor he knew her. it was further stated in the reply that Smt. Manbhar had given birth to an illegitimate child and was blackmailing the petitioner and that she had falsely implicated him in a rape case which was tried by the learned Sessions Judge in which the petitioner was acquitted and Smt. Manbhar under the influence of certain persons falsely alleged that Manoj was born out of the wedlock with the petitioner. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence and seeing all the relevant papers and appreciating them came to the conclusion that Smt. Manbhar was married to Panna Lal and Manoj was born out of this wedlock. He, therefore, by the order dated 15.3.96 fixed Rs 500.00 per month as maintenace allowance for the wife and Rs. 400.00 per month to the child. Against this order, an appeal was preferred. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi by his order dated 18th April, 1998 held that it was not proved that Smt. Manbhar was the wife of the petitioner and hence was not entitled to maintenance but held that the child was definitely entitled for maintenance. He then amended the order and allowed maintenance to Manoj alone who is a boy suffering from polio.

(3.) Now Panna Lal has filed petition Under section 482 Crimial P.C. while Smt. Manbhar dissatisfied with the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge filed revision petition.