Devi Ram Sharma vs Neena Devi and Others

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—The Petitioner has preferred this petition against the order dated Ist August, 2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, affirming the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class.

The respondent preferred an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ''Code'') before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class claiming maintenance on the allegation that the marriage between Neena Devi respondent and the Petitioner herein was solemnized on 4th October, 2000 according to Hindu Custom and Rites. They cohabited as husband and wife and one child, Petitioner No. 2, was born out of this wedlock.

The allegations are that the respondent was harassed by the Petitioner for dowry etc. and earlier also a petition u/s 125 of the Code was filed but she resumed cohabitation on the assurance given by the Petitioner that she shall not be beaten up or maltreated. It is pleaded that he again adopted the same attitude and started maltreating her, neglected to maintain her and she was forced to reside with her parents who had to spend money on the medical treatment when respondent No. 2 was born. Petitioner resisted this petition on a number of grounds. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the evidence, granted maintenance to the son but refused maintenance to the wife on the ground that there is no legal and valid marriage between the parties. Two revision petitions were preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, one by the respondent-wife and her son and second by the Petitioner against his son. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed both the revision petitions. He held that the marriage with Neena-respondent was not legal. The husband is now in this revision. He challenges the grant of maintenance to the child which has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per month. Both the learned Courts below have come to the concurrent findings that the child was entitled to the maintenance, the evidence having been appreciated in detail, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the trial Court. In-fact, the learned Sessions Judge holds that:

...There is no dispute regarding Petitioner No. 2 and respondent himself has agreed to pay the maintenance amount to respondent No. 2....

In these circumstances, this petition is dismissed. I have not pronounced on the legality of the marriage of the Petitioner with respondent.