Manoj Kumar vs Smt. Babita

P.K. Jaiswal, J.—Heard. By this criminal revision u/s 394/401 of Cr.P.C. the applicant is praying for setting aside the order dated 6.1.2011, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 88/09, whereby the learned Family Court awarded maintenance to the non-applicant @ Rs. 1200/-per month with simple interest @ 9% per annum.

This criminal revision has been filed on the ground that no marriage of the applicant was performed with the non-applicant on 5.12.2007. It is also submitted that the non-applicant is not the legally married wife of the applicant and, therefore, in view of the law laid down by various High Courts and the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the cases of Naresh Chandra Vs. Mst. Reshmabai and Another, , Sumitra Devi Vs. Bhikan Choudhary, , Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Another, & Angoori Devi Vs. State of U.P., it is submitted that the non-applicant is not entitled for any maintenance from the applicant, however, the Court below committed an error in entertaining the application and deciding the same against the applicant. He also drew my attention to the statements of AW1 Babita, AW2 Pt. Prem Giri, AW3 Kanhaiyalal (father-in-law of the applicant) and DW5 Rahul, a photographer and submitted that the impugned order be set aside and this revision application be allowed.

As per Ex.A/7, letter written by the applicant to the Inspector General Police, wherein the applicant very specifically admitted that his marriage with the non-applicant was performed on 5.12.2007 at Chintaman temple. Ex. A/5 is the marriage card. Ex.A/18 to A/22 are negatives of the photographs A/8, A/10 and A/15 to A/17 are photographs and negative. Though there is discrepancy in the statement of AW5, but from the statement it cannot be said that these photographs are not of applicant and non-applicant. Even otherwise, the non-applicant and her witnesses in their statements proved the factum of marriage that her marriage was solemnized with the applicant on 5.12.2007 at Chintaman temple. The learned Family Court, considering these facts came to the conclusion that the non-applicant is the legally married wife of the applicant and awarded maintenance @ Rs. 1200/-per month. There is no material on record nor any document has been filed by the applicant to prove that she is earning woman and independently earning for her livelihood. The case of the non-applicant is that though her first marriage was performed, but as per customs in their society ''Natra'' was held with the present applicant. These questions have been considered by the Additional Principal Family Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record and discussed the same in paragraphs 8 to 26.

On due consideration of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the learned Additional Principal Family Court has not committed any illegality or material irregularity to interfere with the order passed on 6.1.2011. If the applicant wants any declaration that no marriage was performed with the non-applicant on 5.12.2007 then he can take appropriate steps in accordance with law by filing a suit for declaration against the non-applicant. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the view that the revision filed by the applicant has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Since no one is appearing on behalf of the non-applicant, no cost is awarded.