CRR No. 655 of 2015. Case: Basant Kumar Vs Suman Mahant. Chhattisgarh High Court
|Case Number:||CRR No. 655 of 2015|
|Party Name:||Basant Kumar Vs Suman Mahant|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: Ravindra Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: F.S. Khare, Advocate|
|Judges:||Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.|
|Issue:||Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 125|
|Judgement Date:||March 01, 2017|
|Court:||Chhattisgarh High Court|
Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.
Order dated 15-07-2015 passed by Judge, Family Court, Janjgir-Champa in Misc. Criminal Case No. 70/2012 is challenged in this petition.
Non-applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.) stating that her marriage was solemnized in accordance with social ritual in September, 2010. Thereafter, she started residing in her matrimonial house. She got pregnant but her pregnancy was got aborted by the applicant and since then the applicant started beating and torturing her. A complaint was submitted before the Superintendent of Police, Janjgir on 19-09-2011 and another complaint was submitted on 14-03-2012. The non-applicant has stated that she is unable to earn and maintain herself and she has no other source of income whereas the applicant is a man of means and capable of giving maintenance, on these grounds, she prayed for order of maintenance.
The applicant in reply denying that non-applicant is his wife. He stated that non-applicant is the wife of Samarulal and had a son namely, Naresh Kumar. He denied the marriage with non-applicant and stated that he was married to Meena, daughter of late Bundarudas Mahant, resident of Bankimongra and that marriage was performed in accordance social rituals. Denying all the other contentions made in the application, he prayed for dismissal of the application for maintenance.
The Court below afforded opportunity to both the parties for adducing evidence and submitting arguments. The impugned order was passed in which it was held that non-applicant is the wife of the applicant who is unable to maintain herself and the applicant was competent to pay maintenance. On these grounds, the application was allowed and the applicant was ordered to pay maintenance of Rs. 1300/- per month to the non-applicant.
The grounds in this revision are that the order passed by the Court below is illegal and contrary to the facts of the case. Non-applicant being married wife of Samarulal was not entitled for maintenance from the applicant. Further there is proof that the applicant has a subsisting marriage and legally married wife, hence, non-applicant could not have got the status of the legal wife of the applicant. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant, that the non-applicant has admitted that the applicant was already married. Her...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL