Jyoti@Baby vs Rajesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12612 MP

                                                           1
                          IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT INDORE
                                                   BEFORE
                                  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                              ON THE 4 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                         CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1214 of 2010

                         BETWEEN:-
                         JYOTI@BABY S/O BALARAM PANWAR, AGED ABOUT 25
                         YE A R S , BALAGANJ MANDSAUR DISTT.MANDSAUR
                         (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                        .....APPLICANT
                         (SHRI PRIYESH GHOSH- ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         RAJESH     S/O     GOPAL      SARHA MANASA
                         DISTT.MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENT


                               Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                            ORDER

This Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C,

1973. Being aggrieved by order dated 29.07.2010 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Criminal Revision No.273/2009.

Since the applicant is already married to another person, she cannot claim maintenance from person with whom she lived for some time.

Learned Additional Session Judge has passed this order in way of correct provisions of law held in the case of "Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia v. State of Gujarat & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 1809".

Since the petitioner is no more legally wedded wife of the respondent, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 8/5/2023 3:31:59 PM

she is not entitled for the claim of maintenance.

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed two judgments which are as fo llo ws :- "Chanmuniya v. Chanmuniya Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Ors. SC 0807/2010" and "Dinesh Mourya v. Ashu Mourya MP 0519/2020". However, in both the judgments the lady was not earlier married to another person hence, the applicant has no parity with these cases hence the applicant cannot be given any benefit on the basis of aforesaid case laws.

On this aspect in Bhagwandas S/o. Tilakdhari Shah vs. Panpati w/o. Bhagwandas Shah reported as 2023(2) MPLJ(Cri.) this High Court has

recently having discussed on concerning legal provisions and also the laws laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, adumbrated in para-19 of the judgment as under:-

"Additionally, a ''wife'' under Section 125 Cr.P.C. would include a woman who has been divorced by a husband or who has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried. As discussed above, even if a woman does not have the legal status of a wife, she is brought within the inclusive definition of "wife'' in order to maintain consistency with the object of the statutory provision. However, a second wife whose marriage is void on account of survival of the first marriage would not be a legally wedded wife, and therefore would not be entitled to maintenance under this provision"

In view of the aforesaid, this Criminal revision petition is dismissed summarily.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE akanksha Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 8/5/2023 3:31:59 PM

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AKANKSHA LAHORIYA Signing time: 8/5/2023 3:31:59 PM