Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1442 (MP)

Naharsingh v. Jhinkibai

2014-11-10

ALOK VERMA

body2014
ORDER 1. This criminal revision is filed against the order dated 1.5.2013 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Alirajpur in Criminal Revision No.8/2013 by which the learned ASJ set aside the order dated 30.11.2012 passed by learned JMFC, Alirajpur in Misc.Criminal Case No.12/2010 and allowed the application of respondent Jhinkibai filed under section 125 of CrPC. 2. The fact relevant for disposal of this revision are that according to the respondent, she had married to petitioner Naharsingh about 30 years back. Son was borne from their wedlock. After two years of marriage, the petitioner married to another woman namely Sumitra, but the petitioner continued to maintain the respondent and her son. About 1½ years back, he stopped paying maintenance amount to her. Her son is married. He is a labourer and therefore, she filed an application under section 125 of the CrPC before the JMFC, Alirajpur for maintenance. 3. The learned JMFC passed a final order on 30.11.2012 in Misc. Criminal Case No.12/2010 and inferred that the respondent was never married to the present petitioner and she was not entitled to maintenance under section 125 of CrPC as she was not legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Against this order, the respondent went in revision before 2nd ASJ, Alirajpur. The revision was disposed of by the learned ASJ by order dated 1.5.2013 in Criminal Revision No.08/2013. Here, the learned ASJ inferred that the respondent is a wedded wife of the present petitioner. Accordingly, the learned ASJ found that the present petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to his legally wedded wife. The revision was allowed and the order of the learned JMFC was set aside. The learned ASJ ordered the payment of Rs.1,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.5.2013. 4. Against this order, the present revision is filed on the ground that the order of the lower Court was contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and also against the evidence available on record. The marriage of respondent to the petitioner was not established. The respondent contested an election for the post of Sarpanch. She was elected also and she never mentioned in her nomination form or in election paper the name of the present petitioner as her husband. The respondent is living separately inspite of request and efforts made by the petitioner and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. The respondent contested an election for the post of Sarpanch. She was elected also and she never mentioned in her nomination form or in election paper the name of the present petitioner as her husband. The respondent is living separately inspite of request and efforts made by the petitioner and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. As such, the petitioner prays that the revision be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. 5. Contrary to this, learned counsel for the respondent argues that the present petitioner filed marks-sheet and transfer certificate of her son, in which name of the present petitioner was mentioned as father of the child. Her name was mentioned as mother of the child. 6. There is oral evidence of the respondent hereself and Vinod Tomar PW2 and also her son Raju PW4, as against this, the present petitioner examined himself and his wife Sumitra as their witness. As documentary evidence, they produced Rashan Card prepared in the year 2006, in which Sumitra was shown as wife of the present petitioner and he had two sons and one daughter. A bank pass-book is also produced which is in the name of his wife Sumitra. However, no document relating to election of the respondent as Sarpanch were filed by them. 7. Learned ASJ has taken into consideration the marks-sheet produced by the respondent which relates to the year 1997, when her son Raju PW4 was studying in Class-VIII. In the transfer certificate also, name of his father has been written as Naharsingh i.e. the present petitioner. Similarly, in the domicile certificate Ex.P/3-C, name of the present petitioner was written. 8. In the cross-examination of Vinod Tomar PW2, nothing important fact emerges which makes the marriage of the respondent to the present petitioner doubtful. On the contrary, the evidence produced by the present petitioner before the Court was an admitted fact that he has second wife, with shom, he is presently living. Her name is Sumitra and therefore, in the Rashan Card and in the bank pass-book, it is natural that her name would appear. 9. Taking all these facts into consideration, I find that no irregularity was committed by the learned Court below. No interference using power granted to this Court under sections 397, 401 of CrPC is called for. As such the present revision is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 9. Taking all these facts into consideration, I find that no irregularity was committed by the learned Court below. No interference using power granted to this Court under sections 397, 401 of CrPC is called for. As such the present revision is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, present criminal revision is dismissed.