IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CRMMO No.103 of 2006 Date of decision : June 26, 2009 Sunpa Devi …Petitioner. Versus Mathu …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. B.S. Ranjan, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. V.K. Verma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J ( Oral ) The present petition is directed against order dated 21st July, 2006, of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla, whereby allowing the revision petition filed by respondent Mathu, order dated 25th November, 2004, passed by Judicial Magistrate, in favour of the petitioner, granting her maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month, has been set aside. 2. Relevant facts may be summed up thus. Petitioner filed an application, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, seeking maintenance allowance, against the respondent, alleging that she was his legally wedded wife and her marriage had taken place in the year 1979, according to local custom and that he had neglected/refused to maintain her. One of the grounds, on which the application was opposed by the respondent, was that Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… the petitioner was not his legally wedded wife, as he was already married to a lady named Sheela, in the year 1972 and that marriage with Sheela was subsisting, when the petitioner allegedly married him. Respondent’s plea did not find favour with the learned Judicial Magistrate. Application was allowed and the petitioner was granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month. 3. Respondent filed revision petition in the Court of Sessions Judge. That came to be heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Before the learned Additional Sessiosn Judge, Sheela, the alleged first wife of the respondent, was examined as AW-2. Learned Additional Sessions Judge concluded that Sheela was married to the respondent in 1972 and that that marriage was dissolved in the year 1996 and that when petitioner’s marriage with Mathu took place, Sheela was the legally wedded wife of respondent Mathu and, hence, his marriage with the petitioner was not lawful. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence. 5. Respondent appeared as his own witness before the trial Magistrate. He very categorically stated that he had married Sheela Devi in the year 1972 and from the wedlock two daughters were born. His testimony to that effect was not challenged in the cross-examination. Respondent also examined one Seema Devi, RW-2, who stated that Sheela Devi was her mother and that she (Sheela Devi) was married to respondent Mathu and that from their wedlock she (RW-2 …3… Seema) and one more daughter were born. Her testimony had also not been challenged in the cross-examination. 6. One affidavit Ex. RW-2/A, sworn by Sheela Devi, in the year 1996, was also proved. Scribe of this affidavit was examined to prove this affidavit. He is RW-5 Rai Singh. The witness stated that two affidavits were scribed by him. One affidavit was of Sheela Devi and the other of Mathu Ram. 7. Sheela Devi was examined in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. She testified that she had married Mathu Ram in the year 1972 and lived with him, as his wife, and from their wedlock two daughters were born. She also stated that the dissolution of her marriage with respondent Mathu Ram took place in the year 1996 and affidavit Ex. RW- 2/A had been sworn by her to put an end to the marriage by a customary mode of divorce. In view of the above-discussed evidence, I do not find any merit in petitioner’s plea that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed illegality in passing the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed. June 26, 2009(sd) (Surjit Singh), J.