Allahabad High Court
Smt. Pushpa Devi vs Deepak Kumar on 28 November, 2022
Bench: Mohd. Aslam
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 31
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1160 of 2017
Revisionist :- Smt. Pushpa Devi
Opposite Party :- Deepak Kumar
Counsel for Revisionist :- Suman Lata,Anita Singh
Hon'ble Mohd. Aslam,J.
Heard Ms. Suman Lata, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Veer Raghav Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
None put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no.2, despite service of notice as per office report dated 25.11.2022.
The instant criminal revision has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.2017 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rae Bareli in Case No. 665 of 2014 (Smt. Pushpa Devi vs. Deepak Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Jagatpur, District- Rae Bareli, whereby the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
The case of the revisionist is that she was married to Ravendra Kumar, elder brother of opposite party, about eleven years ago. Two daughters, namely, Deepali and Riya were born from their wedlock. After 5-6 years of the marriage, her husband got missing. Thereafter, her in-laws got her married to opposite party, Deepak Kumar, younger brother of her earlier husband Ravendra Kumar, in a temple and also an agreement of marriage was executed on 12.12.2008. It is further submitted that father-in-law of the revisionist was an employee in Railway Department and after his death the opposite party Deepak Kumar was given employment under dying-in-harness Rules in place of his father-in-law. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that learned lower court has wrongly held that the daughters, namely, Deepali and Riya who were born out of the wedlock of revisionist and her previous husband Ravendra Kumar cannot get maintenance from opposite party, Deepak Kumar. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.
Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, has opposed the instant revision and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below is not perverse and is according to law. Therefore, no interference is warrant in the impugned judgment and order and the instant revision is liable to be dismissed.
I have gone through the file. It is the admitted case of the revisionist that she was married with Ravendra Kumar, elder brother of opposite party, about 11 years ago and two daughters, namely, Deepali and Riya were born out of their wedlock. Later on, after 5-6 years of the marriage, her husband Ravendra Kumar got missing, thereafter, her in-laws married her to opposite party Deepak Kumar in a temple and a marriage agreement was also executed on 12.12.2008.
Perusal of pleadings and evidence itself reveals that second marriage of the revisionist was performed without obtaining divorce from her previous husband. Therefore, the revisionist cannot be said to be legally wedded wife of opposite party and the children born from the wedlock of her previous husband are not entitled to get maintenance from opposite party.
As per Section 125 Cr.P.C, only legally wedded wife and legitimate or illegitimate minor child can claim maintenance. Section 125 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
"125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.
(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or..............."
Upon hearing learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perusal of record, I find that there is no manifest error of law or perversity in the findings recorded by learned lower court and there is no sufficient ground for setting aside the findings recorded by the court below.
In view of the discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the revisionist has failed to show any illegality, irregularity, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or for setting aside the impugned order. The revision has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.
The instant revision is, accordingly, dismissed at the admission stage.
Order Date :- 28.11.2022
Vikas/-
