- (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 7.4.1999 passed by the learned Special Judge & Addl. Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh whereby the maintenance allowance of Rs. 300/- per month ordered in favour of the present petitioner, has been quashed.
(2.) THE short facts of the case are that the present petitioner has filed petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. stating therein that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. The respondent is not maintaining her. She is unable to maintain herself. Hence reasonable maintenance allowance should be awarded. The learned trial court awarded the maintenance allowance of Rs.300/- per month. In revision, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has quashed the order on the ground that the present petitioner is not the wedded wife of the respondent and she is also earning Rs. 50/- per day, hence there is no need to award any maintenance allowance. The only contention of the present petitioner is that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent, hence reasonable maintenance allowance should be ordered. She has been neglected by the respondent. She is earning Rs.50/- per day and this amount is not sufficient to maintain herself and further more only Rs.300/- has been awarded which has also been assailed by the respondent. The respondent's only contention is that the present petitioner is not his legally wedded wife. To prove the factum of marriage, the petitioner examined herself, Kailash Chand who is Purohit, Keshu Ram, father of the petitioner and Lala Ram who is neighbour of the petitioner. All the four have specifically stated that the present petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. It is true that the petitioner herself has stated that earlier her marriage has been solemnized with Ganpat but still she has specifically stated that she is wedded wife of the respondent and the marriage has been solemnized after having seven steps. AW-2 Kailash Chand who is Purhoit has also supported the contention of the petitioner.
(3.) PER contra, the respondent and his witnesses have stated that the present petitioner is not his wedded wife and hence no duty could be cast upon him to maintain her. In the petition itself, the petitioner has stated that she has sent a notice to the respondent which has been received by the respondent on 20.1.1993. In reply to this, the respondent has also admitted the fact that he has received the notice of the present petitioner. Admittedly, no answer of this notice has been given. If the present petitioner was not the wife of the respondent, then natural conduct of the respondent is to reply to the notice immediately. In notice, factum of marriage has been specifically stated and in spite of receipt of the notice, the respondent has not replied to it, which goes to show that the respondent was not having any objection on this notice. Notice also suggests that the present petitioner has been deserted by the respondent and in spite of notice, respondent has not acted in compliance of notice. Hence the learned trial court has rightly considered the issue no.1. It has been amply proved before the trial court that the present petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. It is not in dispute that the present petitioner is living separately from the respondent since 1993. The respondent is not maintaining her. ;