Allahabad High Court
Brishbhan vs State Of U.P. & Another on 6 August, 2010
Author: Virendra Kumar Dixit
Bench: Virendra Kumar Dixit
Court No. - 17 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 211 of 2003 Petitioner :- Brishbhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Rajendra Prasad Tiwari,S.P. Sharma Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate,S.N. Verma Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Dixit,J.
List revised.
None is present for opposite party no.2.
Heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
This revision is against the judgment and order dated 23.12.2002 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No.259 of 2002 (Smt. Dhankura Vs. Brishbhan) Under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Erach, District Jhansi allowing the maintenance case of opposite party no.2 and granting her maintenance of Rs.500/- and to her minor son also from the date of order.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the opposite party no.2, Dhankura is not a married wife of revisionist. His wife is Smt. Suman Devi. The opposite party no.2 has filed maintenance case on frivolous ground as she was never married to the revisionist nor performed matrimonial obligations, so she is not entitled for any maintenance from the revisionist. The revisionist has filed parivar register in which the name of opposite party no.2 is not mentioned. It is further submitted that the revisionist filed all concerned documents before the learned lower court but the court concerned without perusing the same granted interim maintenance in favour of opposite party no.2 and her minor son. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2002 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Jhansi is illegal, unjust and unreasonable and is liable to be set aside.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the impugned judgment and order dated 23.12.2002 is in accordance with the provisions of law.
The opposite party no.2 Smt. Dhankura filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Family Court Judge, Jhansi on 30.10.2000 with the contention that she is the legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2 Brishbhan. It is further added that the opposite party no.2 had performed second marriage with one Smt. Suman Devi, the opposite party and his second wife are continuously torturing her. Several allegations of cruelty and misbehaviour etc. are being made against the opposite party by th applicant in her application. It is further alleged that the opposite party no.2 Brishbhan is a rich person and his income is about rupees two lacs per annum.
The opposite party Brishbhan in his written statement has denied the allegations of the applicant, Dhankura and stated that Dhankura is not his legally wedded wife. His wife is Smt. Suman Devi. Before the learned lower court Smt. Dhankura as PW-1 stated on oath that her marriage was performed with opposite party, Brishbhan about 28 years back. Later on opposite party performed second marriage with another woman Smt. Suman Devi. His second marriage was not performed with her consent. She has one son Satpal who is about 11-12 years old. On the other side opposite party, Brishbhan, PW-1 stated on oath that his marriage was performed with Suman Devi about 30 years back. His marriage was never performed with the applicant Smt. Dhankura. The opposite party no.2, Smt. Suman Devi, stated on oath that she is legally married wife of opposite party Brishbhan and her marriage was performed about 30 years back. The learned lower court considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and passed the detailed impugned order allowing the application of Smt. Dhankura and granting her interim maintenance of Rs.500/- and Rs.500/- to her son Satpal also, in total Rs.1000/- per month as maintenance allowance from the date of order.
I have gone through the record very carefully, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 23.12.2002 as the impugned order is well in accordance with the provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also the evidence available on record, There is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order.
In view of the above, the instant revision is liable to be dismissed. However from the record it transpires that the son of the revisionist namely Satpal has now become major therefore he is not entitled to get any maintenance amount from the date of his gaining the age of majority.
With these observations this revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.8.2010 PAL/