PREM CHAND MAHTO Vs. LAXMI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 24-6-2002 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 75/1999/6/2000 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at 'Tenughat and also for quashing the order dated 15-9-1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat in Maintenance Case No. 25 of 1997.

(2.) The present application has arisen out of an order passed in revision application No. 75/99/6/2000. Opposite party No. 2 along with her son opposite party No. 3 filed a petition before learned Court below for allowing them maintenance on the ground that opposite party No. 1 is legally wedded wife of petitioner and opposite party No. 2 is their son. Opposite party No. 2 further alleged in the petition that the marriage was solemnized in the year 1992 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. Till 2 and 1/2 years the marital relation between them, (petitioner and opposite party No. 2) remained peaceful but thereafter on account of illegal demand made by the parents of the petitioner and non-fulfilment of the demands on the part of the opposite party No. 2 and her parents, she was subjected to cruelty and several panchayaties were convened in order to settle the disputes between them but there was no result and ultimately opposite party No. 1 was driven out from the house of the petitioner when she was carrying a pregnancy. Finding no way opposite party No. 1 took shelter in the house of her parents and was blessed with a son, Opposite party No. 2 alleged that she has no source of income of her own to maintain her and her son, whereas petitioner has got sufficient means. She filed a petition for maintenance, which was allowed and opposite party No. 1 was granted a sum of Rs. 300.00 as a maintenance allowance and her son was granted a sum of Rs. 150.00 as maintenance allowance. As against the order of the learned Court below, petitioner preferred revision before the Sessions Judge, which was registered as criminal revision No. 75/1996/6/2000, which was transferred to the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge Bermo at Tenughat and the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the revision application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed Title (M) Suit No. 7 of 1994-95 against the opposite party No. 1 for annulment of the marriage by a decree of nullity under Section 12(C) of the Hindu Marriage Act and the said suit was decreed ex parte vide order dated 20-6-1997, as the opposite party No. 1 did not appear and it was held that the "Marriage of the petitioner with the respondent (opposite party No. 1) which is voidable is annulled under Section 12(C) of the Hindu Marriage Act.