- (1.) THIS revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 20.3.2010 passed by C.J.M., Etawah in case no.588 of 2010, Smt. Indrawati Vs. Ravindra Singh, under section 125 Cr.P.C., by which, the learned Magistrate allowed the maintenance application of opposite party no.2 and granted maintenance to her at the rate of Rs.500/ - per month from the date of order.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2, Smt. Indrawati moved an application against the revisionist Ravindra Singh on 7.9.1996 under section 125 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/ - per month. The application was allowed ex parte vide order dated 14.9.1999, which order was set aside on application under section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. The revisionist Ravindra Singh filed reply/written statement denying his marriage with the applicant Indrawati and contended that the revisionist and his elder brother were falsely implicated in a case of murder of Suresh (husband of applicant's sister) and a pressure was mounted on the revisionist that if he accepts his marriage with applicant Indrawati, the murder case will be withdrawn. After hearing counsel for the parties, the A.C.J.M., Etawah dismissed the maintenance application vide judgment and order dated 18.2.2008. Against the above order dated 18.2.2008, the applicant Indrawati filed Criminal Revision No.56 of 2008 before the Sessions Judge and vide judgment and order dated 20.1.2010, the revision was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Etawah and setting aside the judgment and order dated 18.2.2008, the case was remitted back to the Magistrate for afresh disposal, in view of observations made in the body of judgment as well as the evidence on record. Again after hearing both the parties, the learned C.J.M. has passed the impugned judgment and order on 20.3.2010 allowing the application of maintenance and awarding Rs.500/ - per month to her from the date of the order i.e. 20.3.2010. Feeling aggrieved, husband has preferred this revision.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. None appeared for the opposite party no.2, despite she is represented by learned counsel. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the impugned order is bad on facts and law and is self contradictory; that the Learned Magistrate on one hand has ordered that applicant Indrawati shall not be entitled to inherit the property of revisionist until and unless she obtains declaration of her status of being wife of revisionist from competent civil court and in contradiction with it on the other hand has awarded maintenance to applicant at the rate of Rs.500/ - per month observing that till declaration from civil court, the maintenance amount is being awarded nominally; that the opposite party no.2 Smt. Indrawati has not given any date of alleged marriage with the revisionist and there are material contradictions in the statements of complainant as well as her witnesses; that in fact marriage procession of Mahesh S/o Gulab of the village of revisionist had gone for marriage with Indrawati, but since the arm hand of Mahesh was defective, upon objections by relatives of Indrawati, the marriage processions returned without marriage; that a sister of opposite party no.2 was married with Suresh in revisionist's village and on murder of her husband, the revisionist and his brother Atar Singh were falsely implicated and pressure was mounted on them if the revisionist admits marriage with opposite party no.2 the murder trial will be withdraw; that on the basis of voter list, the relationship of husband and wife may not be presumed to exist; that the complainant has failed to prove her marriage with the revisionist by any reliable independent and cogent evidence and setting aside the impugned order, the maintenance application is liable to be dismissed.;