Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 216 (CHH)

TULSI BAI v. DEVNARAYAN

2011-07-05

SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2011
ORDER 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 28.03.2006 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.34/2006 by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. By the impugned order, the learned Principal Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C"). 2. The petitioner, claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent, filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month. The petitioner pleaded that she was married with the Respondent 35 years back under Chhudi custom. In fact, the respondent was the husband of the elder sister of the petitioner. The elder sister of the petitioner was the legally married wife of the respondent. There were 3-4 children out of the wedlock of the respondent and the elder sister of the petitioner. When the elder sister of the petitioner left the company of the respondent, the respondent married with the petitioner in the above manner. In 1988-89, the first wife of the respondent was brought by him; therefore, the petitioner was deserted. In the year 1996-97, a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was earlier filed, which ended into a compromise. Thereafter the petitioner was taken by the respondent, but after few days, she was again sent out by the respondent; therefore, the present petition was flied by her. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent has retired from the post of Traction Fitter in Railways. He has 3-4 acres of agricultural land and he is also getting monthly pension of Rs.6000/-, therefore, the above amount of maintenance may be granted in her favour. 3. It appears that the respondent remained ex-parte. The learned Principal Judge did not rely on the contentions of the petitioner that she was married with the respondent according to Chhudi custom. It was held that in an earlier proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.20/91 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, by a final order dated 07.04.1992, the petitioner was not held to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The Principal Judge also held that similar position remains in the present case also, as no appeal or revision was filed against the earlier order passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.20/91, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. The Principal Judge also held that similar position remains in the present case also, as no appeal or revision was filed against the earlier order passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.20/91, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the criminal revision. 5. The order passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.20/91 on 07.04.92 has been furnished by the counsel for the respondent. It was a contested matter between the petitioner and the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the said matter, the Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent; therefore, she was not entitled to get maintenance from the respondent. 6. Apart from the above, according to the contention of the petitioner, she was married with the respondent 35 years back i.e. sometimes in the year 1969-70, as the petition appears to be filed in the year 2006. The petitioner herself pleaded that she was the second wife of the respondent. She has also pleaded that the first wife of the respondent i.e. the elder sister of the petitioner is still alive. There is no material to show that the first wife of the respondent was divorced by the respondent. There is no pleading that either bigamous marriage was permissible or even marriage according to Chhudi custom was recognized in the community of the petitioner. Therefore, the finding of the, Family I Court that it was not established that the petitioner was a legally wedded wife of the respondent does not appear to be unreasonable. , 7. On going through the entire material placed on record, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the concerned Judge, Family Court, Raipur. 8. The revision, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Revision Dismissed.