Ashok Srivastava, J. - (1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.2.98 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Criminal case No. 405 of 1990, Smt. Chandrawati @ Malia v. Ramji. The learned lower Court had allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., moved by the opposite party against the revisionist.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that opposite party No. 2 Smt. Chandrawati @ Malia filed a petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure against the revisionist in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Azamgarh which was registered there as Criminal Case No. 602 of 1990. During the pendency of the said petition it appears that a court of Judge, Family Court was created in the District of Azamgarh and the said petition stood transferred to that Court and it was ultimately decided by the Court on 28.2.98 on merits and the petition was allowed. In her petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure the opposite party has alleged that she was married to the revisionist some ten years ago from the date of her application. The marriage was solemnized in accordance with Hindu rites and in the marriage the father of opposite party had given away substantial dowry including ornaments. Two issues were born out of the wedlock. It has been further alleged that the revisionist is an educated young man and is doing business of printing press in the city of Azamgarh and he has also sufficient landed property which is cultivated and the revisionist has substantial income out of the agriculture produce. The opposite party has said in her petition that she is a rustic and uneducated housewife and she is enable to maintain herself and her two minor children. She has further mentioned that the behaviour of the revisionist with her was cruel. He often demanded dowry from his father -in -law and to press his demand he continuously subjected the opposite party mentally and physically. After some time the revisionist turned the opposite party out of his house alongwith her two children and had remarried and his second wife is living with him in his house. It has been specifically mentioned in the petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure that the revisionist had married one Anita on 3.5.90 when the opposite party was away to her father's home in connection with the marriage of her brother. The opposite party had tried her best that she should be allowed to live with the revisionist and a panchayat was also held in this connection but the revisionist had outrightly refused to keep the opposite party and her children with him. It is also come in the said petition that the revisionist had sufficient means and the opposite party and her children are not in a position to maintain themselves as they do not have any income and the opposite party is not in a position to earn her livelihood. In the last the opposite party had prayed the learned lower Court that a sum of Rs. 700/ -be awarded as maintenance jointly for her and her two children.
(3.) THE revisionist had contested the claim of opposite party. He has said that the opposite party is not his wife. He has further stated that since opposite party is not his wife therefore there is no question that her two children were born due to consummation of the alleged marriage. It has further been mentioned that the revisionist was married to one Smt. Chandrawati but she had died issue less and thereafter the revisionist had re -married and he is living with her. The revisionist has also mentioned in his objection that to the best of his knowledge the opposite party is a woman of easy virtue and she had illicit relationship with so many persons. It has further been stated that due to this reason the husband of opposite party had deserted her and ultimately divorced her. It has also been mentioned in the objection that the name of opposite party is Nirmala and not Chandrawati. He has further stated that the father of the opposite party wanted to get the opposite party married to the revisionist but when opposite party had refused to marry, her father felt insulted and due to this reason he alongwith opposite party hatched a conspiracy which had culminated in the shape of petition under Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure and a rejoinder affidavit was also filed before the learned lower Court by the opposite party but nothing new has been said in it.;