PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA Vs. KANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 29-5-2000 passed by Shri Ram Narain Singh, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga in Cr. Revision No. 37/1998. 5/1978 whereby the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner allowed the revision application in part filed by the petitioner who is also O.P. in this revision application.

(2.) Case of the petitioner-O.P. of this revision application is that Smt. Kanti Devi filed a Cr. Misc. case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga being Maintenance Case No. 15 of 1994 stating therein that she was married with the petitioner of this revision application at Jammu in a temple in the year 1984 and she lived with this petitioner at Jammu as wife and husband for one and a half year. Thereafter the petitioner of this revision application brought her to Lohardaga where she lived with this petitioner as wife and husband; two children were born out of this wedlock. But thereafter the petitioner started neglecting her and, therefore, she filed the maintenance case.

(3.) On notice, the petitioner of this application as O.P. appeared and filed show cause denying the fact of the marriage with the petitioner of Maintenance Case No. 15 of 1994 asserting therein that he never went to Jammu and never married her. The petitioner of this revision application further stated in his show-cause that the so-called wife in order to dispute the salary lodged a false case against him and when the salary was paid as per her desire, she admitted before the learned Sessions Judge that she never went to Jammu with the petitioner. The petitioner of this revision application has further stated that he is unemployed and he is dependent upon his grandfather and O.P. of this revision application is the legally wedded wife of one Vijay Kumar and she is living with him along with her children and she is being maintained by Vijay Kumar. It is further alleged that the O.P.-petitioner herself lodged a case being Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 3 of 1985 on 10-1-1985 alleging therein that she was abducted by the petitioner on 19-1-1984 but no such F.I.R. alleging abduction was lodged either by her or by her parents prior to 19-1-1985. hence, allegation that she was married with the petitioner in the year 1984 at Jammu and then lived for one and a half year as husband and wife at Lohardaga, is false. In fact, the first information was reported only to extract money from the petitioner and when the money was paid as per her desire, then she deposed before the learned Sessions Judge that she was never abducted by the petitioner neither she was married with him nor they lived as husband and wife. The case filed by her ended in acquittal. The learned Court below after taking evidence of both the sides both oral and documentary rejected the claim of the petitioner-O.P. for claim of maintenance. Thereafter, the petitioner-O.P. being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment preferred criminal revision No. 37 of 1998 in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Lohardaga and learned Additional Judicial Commissioner allowed the revision application No. 37 of 1998 and set aside the judgment dated 29-5-2000 and passed the order directing the learned Court below to award maintenance to the petitioner-O.P. and two children said to have been born out of the wedlock between the parties.