Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 174 (MP)

Ushabai v. Sanju Kevat

2018-02-08

VANDANA KASREKAR

body2018
ORDER : VANDANA KASREKAR, J. 1. The applicants have filed this revision challenging the judgment dated 04.10.2016 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur by which the Court has remanded the matter back to the trial Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the present applicants had filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C before the Court of Judicial Officer, Gram-Nyayalaya Anuppur claiming an amount of Rs. 3000/- to both the applicants total amount of Rs. 6,000/- per month. The said case is registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 49/2008. In the said application, she has stated that the respondent-husband and her-in-laws started cruel behavior with her raising demand of dowry and she has been thrown out from the matrimonial house and since then she is living with her minor son i.e. applicant No. 2 with her parents. She is unable to maintain herself as well as her minor son. She further pleaded that the respondent is the owner of 20 acres of agriculture land from which he is earning 25,000/- per month. In such circumstances, she prayed that she is entitled to get the maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- per month. 3. Learned Judicial Officer, Gram Nyayalaya, Anuppur has partly allowed the application preferred by the applicants and thereby awarded a maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month in favour of applicant No. 1 and Rs. 600/- in favour of applicant No. 2. 4. The respondent being aggrieved by that order has preferred criminal appeal under Section 26 of the Gram Nyayalaya Adhiniyam before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur. In the said appeal, the respondent has raised an objection that neither applicant No. 1 is his legally wedded wife nor applicant No. 2 is his real son. He pleaded that he never married to applicant No. 1 and applicant No. 1 was already married with another person from whom, she give the birth to applicant No. 2. He, therefore, prays for DNA Test of applicant No. 2 for which he said that he will bear all the expenses of DNA Test. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur has allowed the appeal of the respondent holding that the applicants are not entitled for amount of maintenance per month and also directed the trial Court for conducting a DNA Test. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicants have filed the present revision. 5. The learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Anuppur has allowed the appeal of the respondent holding that the applicants are not entitled for amount of maintenance per month and also directed the trial Court for conducting a DNA Test. Being aggrieved by that order, the applicants have filed the present revision. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submits that the Appellate Court has erred in setting aside the order passed by the learned JMFC. He submits that applicant No. 1 is unable to maintain herself as well as applicant No. 2 who is minor. The Appellate Court has not properly considered the evidence produced by the applicants. The Appellate Court has failed to considered that applicant No. 1 is the legally married wife of respondent and applicant No. 2 is his real son. However, this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the Appellate Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supports the order passed by the Appellate Court and submits that on the basis of the documents produced by the respondent, it is clear that one Uma Bai is the wife of the respondent. Even in the Rashan Card and other documents in which the name of wife of the respondent has been shown as Uma Bai. While the documents which is produced by the applicants shows the name of father as Jagan Kewat. On the basis of this, he submits that the appellate Court has rightly remanded the matter back to the trial Court for conducting DNA Test of applicant No. 2. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From perusal of the records, it reveals that the applicants have filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C before the JMFC Gram Nyayalaya, Anuppur. The JMFC vide order dated 19.02.2016 has partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs. 1,000/- per month to applicant No. 1 and Rs. 600/- per month to applicant No. 2. Being aggrieved by that order, the respondent has preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. Before the Appellate Court, the respondent has denied the marriage with applicant No. 1 and also denied that the applicant No. 2 is his son. He, therefore, prays for conducting the DNA Test of applicant No. 2. 600/- per month to applicant No. 2. Being aggrieved by that order, the respondent has preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge. Before the Appellate Court, the respondent has denied the marriage with applicant No. 1 and also denied that the applicant No. 2 is his son. He, therefore, prays for conducting the DNA Test of applicant No. 2. During the trial, both the parties have produced the documents, however, these documents were not exhibited by any of the parties. Therefore, the appellate Court has remanded the matter back to the trial Court for permitting the parties to exhibit the documents as well as for conducting DNA Test of applicant No. 2. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere into the order passed by the Appellate Court. 8. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed, with no order as to costs.