Pooran Lal vs Ms. Somwanti Bai

U.C. Maheshwari, J.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 3-12-2003, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Waraseoni in criminal revision No. 107/02 whereby the non-applicant''s revision, by setting aside the judgment dated 26-2-2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balaghat in criminal case No. 58/1999 by which the application u/s 125 of Criminal Procedure Code (In brief "Code) of non-applicant was dismissed, has been allowed and the applicant is directed to pay the maintenance @ Rs. 300/ p.m. from the date of order of trial Court dated 26-2-2000.

As per the application u/s 125 of Code filed by non-applicant, she claimed maintenance amount @ Rs. 300/- p.m. as daughter of present applicant and was not having any source of income for livelihood.

By filing the reply present applicant denied all the allegation of the present non-applicant before the trial Court and stated that non-applicant is not his daughter and he never married with the mother of the present non-applicant.

After recording the evidence trial Court concluded the matter by dismissing the application of the non-applicant. The non-applicant went up in revision which has been allowed by setting aside the order of trial Court and held that the non-applicant is legitimate daughter of present applicant and awarded the maintenance as said above. Being aggrieved this revision petition is preferred by the present applicant.

Having heard on the question of admission, I am of the view that this revision petition deserves to be dismissed for following reasons;

The subordinate re visional Court in paragraphs 8 to 12 has given full consideration and appreciation to the evidence recorded by the trial Court and passed the order by giving cogent reasons. It is a statutory provisions that even illegitimate child and specially daughter till her marriage is entitled to get the maintenance u/s 125 of the said Code and by giving appropriate reasons in this regard the non-applicant has been decided as illegitimate daughter of the applicant, and therefore, she is entitled to get the maintenance from the present applicant.

It is also proved that the present non-applicant is not having sufficient means for livelihood and she has been neglected and deserted by the applicant, on this count, she is entitled for maintenance.

Although learned counsel of the applicant cited a reported case of High Court of Himachal Pradesh 7997 (2) Cri 570 , Darje Wangial vs. Karam Singh, but in the above cited case the contention of the wife for claiming maintenance was not corroborated by any other evidence and therefore, the ratio of this case does not give any benefit to the applicant because in the case at hand the testimony of the non-applicant is supported by not only her mother Smt. Kishna Bai (A.W.I) but also by relative of both the parties namely Nanaji (A.W.2).

Counsel of the applicant has also submitted a photo copy of an interim order dated 12-10-2004 of this Court passed in Cr.R. 557/04, which is only an order of admission and this also does not help to the applicant because said order is in relation to the other parties and also does not reflect any factual matrix.

In view of the abovesaid premises, I have not found any error of jurisdiction or illegality or anything against propriety of law or any perversity in between the evidence and the judgment of the revisional Court. Therefore, this revision petition deserves to be and is dismissed at the stage of motion hearing.

Let the record of courts below be sent back.