PUSHPA Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7.4.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh whereby the maintenance allowance of Rs. 300/- per month ordered in favour of the present petitioner, has been quashed.

(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the present petitioner has filed petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. stating therein that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. The respondent is not maintaining her. She is unable to maintain herself. Hence reasonable maintenance allowance should be awarded. The learned trial court awarded the maintenance allowance of Rs.300/- per month. In revision, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has quashed the order on the ground that the present petitioner is not the wedded wife of the respondent and she is also earning Rs. 50/- per day, hence there is no need to award any maintenance allowance.

(3.) PER contra, the respondent and his witnesses have stated that the present petitioner is not his wedded wife and hence no duty could be cast upon him to maintain her. In the petition itself, the petitioner has stated that she has sent a notice to the respondent which has been received by the respondent on 20.1.1993. In reply to this, the respondent has also admitted the fact that he has received the notice of the present petitioner. Admittedly, no answer of this notice has been given. If the present petitioner was not the wife of the respondent, then natural conduct of the respondent is to reply to the notice immediately. In notice, factum of marriage has been specifically stated and in spite of receipt of the notice, the respondent has not replied to it, which goes to show that the respondent was not having any objection on this notice. Notice also suggests that the present petitioner has been deserted by the respondent and in spite of notice, respondent has not acted in compliance of notice.