Saygo Bai vs Chueeru Bajrangi

T.P. Sharma, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 22-03-2003 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Ambikapur in Criminal Revision No. 22/2003 affirming the order, dismissing the application for maintenance passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambikapur in Criminal Case No. 30/1997 vide order dated 6-1-2003 on the ground that the present Petitioner has left the house of Respondent without any sufficient cause.

The order is challenged on the ground that the Petitioner is legally wedded wife of the Respondent and Respondent was under obligation to maintain his wife but Respondent has contacted the second marriage and on the ground of second marriage, the present Petitioner has left the house of Respondent. The Petitioner is not able to maintain herself and is entitled for maintenance but Court below has not considered the claim of maintenance and thereby committed an illegality.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner is a legally wedded wife of the Respondent and Respondent was under obligation to maintain his wife but Respondent has contacted the second marriage and on the ground of second marriage, the present Petitioner has left the house of Respondent. The Petitioner is not able to maintain herself and is entitled for maintenance but Court below has not considered the claim of maintenance and thereby committed illegality. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance in the matter of Smt. Jhulabai v. Raghunandan Ram Kannoje 2005(2) CGLJ 256, in which this Court has held that in case of second marriage contacted by husband during life time of the first wife, first wife is entitled for maintenance.

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent opposed the petition and submitted that the Petitioner herself has admitted in her evidence that after four years of the leaving of the house of the Respondent and after refusal by the Petitioner, Respondent has contacted second marriage, therefore, the present Petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Petitioner may avail the remedy before the Civil Court.

Relationship between the parties are not disputed. Petitioner herself has deposed in her evidence in para 2 and 3 that when her husband contacted second marriage and refused her to live with him then she went to her maternal home but in para 13 of her cross examination she has specifically admitted that after four to five years of leaving the house of Respondent, Respondent has contacted second marriage. She has admitted in para 8 of her cross examination that her husband came to her for taking her back with him to his house but she refused. Her aforesaid admission reveals that she herself has left the house of Respondent and after four to five years of leaving from the house of Respondent, when she failed to return back to her matrimonial house, Respondent has contacted second marriage. Present Petitioner has not left the house on the ground of second marriage performed by Respondent but Respondent has contacted second marriage on the ground that the present Petitioner has left his house and failed to discharge her matrimonial obligation.

In these circumstances, Court below has rightly rejected the claim of maintenance in summary proceedings u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court below has not committed any irregularity warranting any interference u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.