JAIN - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 24.8.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar (Nagaur) in Revision Petition No. 28/2005, upholding the order dated 26.2.2005 in Cr. Case No. 12/2001 (190/1999) whereby the ACJM, Makrana partially accepted the application for grant of maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. in respect of petitioner's daughter but rejected the prayer in respect of Smt. Geeta, she being not legally married wife of the respondent No.2 Birbal S/o Bhanwar Lal Bawri; the petitioner Geeta Devi has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(2.) THE petitioner Smt. Geeta Devi said to have married with the respondent No.2 Birbal S/o Bhanwar Lal Bawri on 2.7.1990 before the Marriage Officer, Pargana Etawah and out of their wedlock, one daughter Priyanka was born. It is alleged that the respondent Birbal has deserted the petitioner and has not been looking after them for long. In response to the notice, the respondent Birbal stated that the petitioner Smt. Geeta is not his wife, he did not marry her and therefore, there is no question of restitution of marital relation. In fact, petitioner is duly married wife of Chhotu Ram S/o Jeevan Ram Bhawla and out of their consumption, girl Priyanka born. She deserted her husband and the community panchayat intervened to sent her back with her husband. It is also stated that the petitioner has sub-caste relation of sister with the respondent, therefore, there can not be any other relationship between them. The marriage of the respondent Birbal took place in the year 1982 with Smt. Madhu Sethai and they have three children. It was alleged that relatives of the respondent Birbal instigated the petitioner to file this fallacious application, which is liable to, be rejected. Learned A.C.J.M. while deciding the application vide order dated 26.2.2005 held that the marriage certificate dated 2.7.1990 issued by Marriage Officer, Etawah is genuine but the marriage was void because on that day, respondent Birbal was already married with Smt. Madhu Sethai, who is still in his marriage and during lifetime of first wife, second marriage is void under Hindu Law. It was also held that after 2.7.1990, respondent Birbal stayed with petitioner Smt. Geeta as husband and wife and the girl Priyanka born out of their consummation and in view of provisions of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C, child born out of void marital relation has right to maintenance. Therefore, application for maintenance was partially accepted in respect of Miss Priyanka - daughter of petitioner and respondent No.2 - Birbal. The decision of the A.C.J.M., Makrana was upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbatsar by detailed order dated 24.8.2007. Hence, this petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, supported by learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the impugned orders dated 26.2.2005 and 24.8.2007 passed by the Courts below as also file and record of the learned lower Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner Geeta Devi is legally married wife of non-petitioner No.2 Birbal and the factum of marriage is proved, so she is entitled to receive maintenance from the non-petitioner No.2. He further contended that the impugned orders are against the provisions of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. the same deserves to be dismissed and the maintenance should be awarded in favour of petitioner Geeta Devi. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 opposed this Criminal Misc. Petition and contended that the orders impugned are speaking and there is no illegality in he orders passed by both the Courts below. He further contended that the finding of the learned courts below with regard to grant of maintenance is perfectly just and proper and it does not require any interference. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the present petition" filed by the petitioner Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. I find no illegality in the orders impugned dated 26.2.2005 and 24.8.2007 passed by the learned courts below rejecting the prayer of maintenance in respect of petitioner Geeta Devi and accepting the application for grant of maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. in respect of petitioner's daughter Miss Priyanka. ;