IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4920 of 2001 Piyare Lal … Petitioner Vs 1st Additional Sessions Judge & others … Respondents Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Sri Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 01.04.1997 as well as judgment and order dated 03.04.1992 passed by the respondents No. 1 and 2 respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 – Smt. Krishna was married with the petitioner on 15.05.1987 according to the Hindu Rites. A son was born out of this wedlock. Initially, the behaviour of the petitioner with her was good, but he started cruelty and used to beat her. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the respondent No. 2 – Special Magistrate (C.B.I.), Dehradun. The petitioner has filed the written statement before the trial court, denying the allegations mentioned in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent No. 3. The Special Judge, C.B.I., Dehradun awarded a sum of Rs. 250/- per month to the respondent No. 3 and Rs. 200/- per month to her son from the date of filing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. vide judgment and order dated 30.04.1992. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, which was also dismissed vide judgment and order dated 01.04.1997. 2 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the courts below, the petitioner preferred this petition before the Allahabad High Court for quashing the aforesaid orders of the courts below, which has been transferred to this Court after creation of separate State. 4. Heard Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Sri Nagesh Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before the Court that the court below has committed error while deciding the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In order to support his case, he has invited my attention towards the statement of respondent No. 3 who has herself stated in her deposition that she is the second wife of the petitioner and as such, she is not entitled for any maintenance from the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has stated that the court below has rightly awarded the maintenance in favour of respondent No. 3. In the counter affidavit, he has taken the plea that the petitioner is the permanent employee of Doiwala Sugar Mill and his salary is more than about Rs. 6,500/- per month. He has further submitted that the petitioner himself admitted in his evidence that he has already divorced his earlier wife. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 3 is not the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. 3 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the respondent No. 3 has no right to get any maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., as she has not filed any judgment of divorce of the first wife and the petitioner has admitted that no divorce has taken place between him and his first wife. In order to support his contention, he has placed before me a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs Sate of Gujarat & others, reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 787. 8. On the careful scrutiny of the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any force in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. From the perusal of the statement of the petitioner, it is clear that he himself admitted this fact that respondent No. 3 is his wife. In the counter affidavit, respondent No. 3 has stated that the petitioner himself admitted this fact that in the village before the Panchayat, the compromise was done and he has divorced his earlier wife pursuant to this compromise. It has further stated that in the remote villages, it is a customary, which is binding on all the parties and have legal sanctity to follow the orders of the Panchayat. In his reply, the petitioner has pleaded that the compromise before Panchayat has no legal value in the eye of law and legally divorce can be obtained from the competent court only. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record available before me, I am of the view that the petitioner himself stated that respondent No. 3 is his wife. Further, the petitioner nowhere denied this fact that respondent No. 3 is his wife. It has come from the record, that though initially, respondent No. 2 treated her nicely but 4 thereafter, he started ill-treating her and she was subjected to mental and physical torture. It is a natural and fundamental duty of a man to maintain his wife, children and parents so long as they are unable to maintain themselves. In this case, the petitioner himself admitted this fact in his evidence that respondent No. 3 is his wife and he has already divorced the first wife in the village Panchayat, therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. 10. In view of the observations, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 13.08.2008 ASWAL