HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SinaleBench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil KumarSinha. J. \... Criminal Reyjsion No. 445 of 2006 Smt. Tulsi Bai Vs. Devnarayan ORDER PostforOrder:^ /07/2011 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^^ 1 ^S-Ss 1 1 "—"I J .'1 sy^^K, "^ •":' ^FJ. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. CRIMINAL REVISION N0.445of2006 PETITIONER Smt. Tulsi Bai W/o Shri Devnarayan Binjhawar aged about 60 years, Caste Scheduled Tribe, R/o Near Radhakrishna Mandir, Bade Ramnagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur(C.G.) Versus Devnarayan (Retired Traction Fitter), S/o Tibolal Binjhawar aged about 64 years, R/o Village Balpur Champa, Post Champa Janjgir, Thana - Champa (CriminalRevisionunder Section 19(4)0fthe Familv CourtsAct. 19841 RESPONDENT Appearance: Ms. Sunita Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ashok Vaishnav, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER (O5'.07.2011) (1) This revision is directed against the order dated 28.03.2006 passed in Miscellaneous Case No.34/2006 by the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur. By the impugned order, the learned Principal Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 125 ofthe Code ofCriminal Procedure (in short "Cr.P.C."). "'^^ ••^^ '^ 1 CRJMINAL REVISION N0.445 of 2006 ^ (2) The petitioner, claiming herself to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent, filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C., claiming maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month. The petitioner pleaded that she was married with the respondent 35 years back under Chhudi custom. In fact, the respondent was the husband of the elder sister of the petitioner. The elder sister of the petitioner was the legally married wife of the respondent. There were 3-4 children out of the wedlock of the respondent and the elder sister of the petitioner. When the elder sister of the petitioner left the company of the respondent, the respondent married with the petitioner in the above manner. In 1988-89, the first wife of the respondent was brought by him; therefore, the petitioner was deserted. In the year 1996-97, a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was earlier filed, which ended into a compromise. Thereafter the petitioner was taken by the respondent, but after few days, she was again sent out by the respondent; therefore, the present petition was flied by her. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent has retired from the post of Traction Fitter in Railways. He has 3-4 acres of agricultural land and he is also getting monthly pension of Rs.6000/-, therefore, the above amount of maintenance may be granted in her favour. (3) It appears that the respondent remained ex-parte. The learned Principal Judge did not rely on the contentions of the petitioner that she was married with therespondent according to Chhudi custom. It was held that in an earlier proceeding under S^ction 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.20/91 of the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, by a final order dated 07.04.1992, the petitioner was not held to be the legally wedded wife of the respondent. The Principal Judge also ^. '^'^ S ^^ I ^ ^. CRIMINAL REVISION N0.445 of 2006 held that similar position remains in the present case also, as no appeal or revision was filed against the earlier order passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.20/91, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe criminal revision. (5) The order passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.20/91 on 07.04.92 has been furnished by the counsel for the respondent. It was a contested matter between the petitioner and the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In the said matter, the Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner was not the legally wedded wife of the respondent; therefore, she was not entitled to get maintenance from the respondent. (6) Apart from the above, according to the contention of the petitioner, she was married with the respondent 35 years back i.e. sometimes in the year 1969-70, as the petition appears to be filed in the year 2006. The petitioner herself pleaded that she was the second wife of the respondent. She has also pleaded that the first wife of the respondent i.e. the elder sister of the petitioner is still alive. There is no material to show that the first wife of the respondent was divorced by the respondent. There is no pleading that either bigamous marriage was permissible or even marriage according to Chhudi custom was recognized in the community of the petitioner. Therefore, the finding of the Family Court that it was not established that the petitioner was a legally wedded wife of the respondent does not appear to be unreasonable. "r' ^-.''?.-; "^^ ^ w CRIMINAL REVISION N0.445 of 2006 (7) On going through the entire material placed on record, 1 am of the opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the concerned Judge, Family Court, Raipur. ^ (8) The revision, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. — Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Shyna