KRISHNAVENI RAI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case, under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C"), is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 07.08.2017 passed in M.C.No.1522015 by the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of JHCBBCcumAdditional Family Judge, Hyderabad, in dismissing the M.C filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming maintenance from the respondent No.2 herein.

(2.) Heard arguments of Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel appearing for Sri V.B.Gopal Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1State; Sri Maj Pankaj Rairespondent No.2 appeared as partyinperson and perused the record.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.2 and the marriage was solemnized on 13.12.2014 as per the customs prevailing in the Hindu law. The respondent No.2 being widower, married the petitioner, who is a divorcee. The second marriage of the parties was hurriedly fixed at the behest of the respondent No.2, after consulting astrologers, after the death of his first wife. Thereafter, the petitioner was subjected to lot of mental and physical torture and was also subjected to cruel behaviour in the hands of the 2nd respondentpartyinperson and this ultimately driven the petitioner out of matrimonial house. Therefore, she was constrained to file complaint against the respondent No.2 for the offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 500 IPC and the police also filed charge sheet. Learned counsel contended that though the second marriage of the petitioner was performed with the respondent No.2 during pendency of the FCA No.1092007 before the Hon'ble High Court, the provision under Section 15 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 have no application. It operates only against the husband and in support of his submission, he relied upon the decision reported in Anurag Mittal v. Shaily Mishra Mittal AIR 2018 SC 3983 and contended that without taking the aforementioned factors into consideration, the Court of Sessions was pleased to allow the Crl.R.P.No.1922017 on 23.01.2018 filed by the 2nd respondent herein, which is irregular and erroneous. The petitioner herein would come under the purview of 'wife' as defined under Section 125 (b) Cr.P.C and is entitled for maintenance as sought for, and ultimately prayed to set aside the order impugned. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions: