RADHEY SHYAM Vs. GUDIYA @ LAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 06.09.2000 passed by Additional Civil Judge(J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Dholpur(hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Criminal Case No. 165/1993, whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent Gudiya @ Laxmi was allowed and the petitioner was directed to make payment of maintenance allowance to the respondent to the tune of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of filing of the application, i.e. 24.07.1993.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/wife preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner/husband before the learned Trial Court on 24.07.1993. In the application it was averred that the applicant was married to the petitioner. In the marriage, her family members gave Stridhan etc. After the marriage, the petitioner and his family members started behaving in a bad manner towards her. She was being harassed and tortured with demand of dowry and ultimately she was expelled from her matrimonial home to Maniya, District Dholpur. The petitioner was having jeep tempo and agricultural land also and earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. Respondent/wife was having no source of income for her maintenance and living with her mother, who is poor. The respondent/wife claimed Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance from the date of filing of the application.

(3.) In reply, the petitioner/husband denied the averments made in the application and even denied the factum of marriage and contended that the respondent was living as 'kept' with him. It was also stated in the reply that when the marriage was not performed between the parties, there was no question of demand of dowry. The respondent remained with the petitioner as his 'kept' for few days and thereafter, she went away because till the income of tempo was received by the petitioner, the respondent was enjoying with him, but when tempo was sold and there was no source of income, she left the petitioner. In the additional pleas, it was also contended that there was no legal marriage, as such, the respondent is not entitled for any maintenance allowance.