AMAR SARAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Shahroze Khan, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Shri Tripathi B.G. Bhai, learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate.
(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed by Smt. Sudha against the judgement and order dated 14.7.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 185 of 2005 (Lavkush v. Smt. Sudha), under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby the learned Sessions Judge had allowed the criminal revision and set aside the order dated 21.4.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in Misc. Criminal Case No. 262 of 2002 by which the learned Magistrate allowed maintenance to Smt. Sudha at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month from the date of application, i.e. 3.5.2000. Learned Counsel for the revisionist Smt. Sudha contended that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in criminal revision by recording a finding that the revisionist-Smt. Sudha was not married to opposite party No. 2-Lavkush is illegal and perverse.
(3.) THE reasons given by the revisional Court for reaching this conclusion were that the revisionist-Smt. Sudha has stated that she got married to opposite party No. 2 eight years prior to the date of her moving the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. on 3.5.2000 and by this reasoning the marriage should have taken place in the year 1992. The revisionist-Smt. Sudha had even filed a copy of the mar­riage invitation card dated 5.5.1992, but the same was not proved in accordance with law and that on a prima facie reading the invitation card appeared to be fabricated.;