- (1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 05.12.2015 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST Act/Additional & Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.0000089 of 2015, the applicants have preferred the instant application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
(2.) The brief facts giving rise to the instant application are that the applicant no.1 and the opposite party no.2 were married in the month of January 2000. The applicant no.1 is a South Indian Hindu and it is alleged that after the marriage she was emotionally harassed by the opposite party no.2 for religious conversion. In the year 2007, they moved to Hyderabad along with their two minor children. In August 2008, the opposite party no.2 got an appointment at Reliance Communication, Bangalore and he accordingly shifted to Bangalore while the opposite party no.1 continued to live at Hyderabad with both the children. It is alleged that the opposite party no.2 developed intimacy with the opposite party no.3 and stopped visiting Hyderabad. After sometime the applicant no.1 came back to Lucknow with her minor children and started living with her in-laws. In the year 2009, the opposite party no.2 filed a divorce petition against the applicant no.1 at Family Court, Lucknow. In October 2009, the opposite party no.2 resigned from Reliance Communication, Bangalore and shifted to Ahmadabad to marry opposite party no.3. A male child was also borne on 03.06.2011 out of the ill-legitimate relations between the opposite party no.2 and 3. The Principal Judge Family Court, Lucknow on 24.10.2011 passed an ex parte decree of divorce. The applicant no.1, however, left for United States in the month of November 2011 for some official work and came back to India on 27th April, 2012. In the meantime, the opposite party no.2 submitted some documents with forged signatures of the applicant no.1 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. On coming to know about the ex parte decree, the applicant moved an application for setting aside the ex parte decree of divorce. She also lodged a First Information Report against the opposite party no.2 on 26.05.2012. The opposite party no.2 filed a writ petition for quashing of the First Information Report being Writ Petition No.8678 (M/B) of 2012. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under section 494 IPC against the opposite party no.2. The police submitted another charge-sheet on 30.01.2013 under Section 498-A IPC in Case Crime No.170 of 2012. The applicant no.1 also lodged a First Information Report about making her forged signatures by the opposite party no.2 which was also registered by the police. The opposite party no.2 for quashing of the said First Information Report filed another Writ Petition No.10747 (M/B) of 2013. However, in the case under section 498-A and 494 IPC, opposite party no.2 was granted bail after which the writ petition was dismissed by this Court. In the First Information Report lodged with regard to forged signatures, the opposite party no.2 was denied bail by the Magistrate, upon which he moved bail application before the District & Sessions Judge who granted interim bail to him, subsequently, he was released on regular bail. The Principal Judge, Family Court also allowed the application of the applicant no.1 for setting aside the ex parte decree of divorce. Being aggrieved by the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court setting aside the ex parte decree, opposite party no.2 filed a civil revision, but the said revision was dismissed on 26.02.2015. Since the applicant no.1 was facing financial crisis and was unable to maintain herself and her children, she filed an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the year 2014. The learned Judicial Magistrate on 03.12.2014 passed an order directing the opposite party no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- each to the applicants no.2 and 3 per month till they attain the age of majority. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the opposite party no.2 preferred an appeal before the District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow being Criminal Appeal No.89 of 2015 which was allowed by the judgment and order impugned in this application.
(3.) I have heard Sri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhara as well as Sri Jagrit Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.;