Suresh Singh vs Shashi

S.K. Palo, J.—Heard.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 11th December, 2008 passed by the Session Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No. 201/2007 (Suresh Vs. Shashi and others), the petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 11th December, 2008 vide the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has maintained the order passed by JMFC, Bhind in Case No. 61/2006 granting maintenance to the non-petitioners.

Non-petitioner No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the daughter and son of the petitioner. The learned JMFC after affording the opportunities to both the parties, pronounced the order dated 28.9.2007, by which maintenance has been granted to the non-petitioners. The petitioner has challenged the same before the Sessions Judge, Bhind, vide the impugned order dated 11th December, 2008 and the revision has been disallowed.

The petitioner has assailed the order dated 11th December, 2008 on two grounds, firstly that the non-petitioners No. 2 and 3 have attained the age of majority and, therefore, they are not entitled to receive any maintenance allowance. Secondly, non-petitioner No. 1 is leading an adulterous life, therefore, she is also not entitled to receive any maintenance from him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that non-petitioner No. 1 has been leading an adulterous life and even after adducing evidence in this regard, the maintenance order was passed.

It is clear from the reading of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that the legitimate or illegitimate child not being a married daughter, who has attained the age of majority is entitled to receive maintenance.

Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner may be allowed.

So far as non-petitioner No. 2 Pooja and non-petitioner No. 3 Bholu alias Omkar are concerned, there is no mention of maintenance till the age of majority in the impugned order dated 28.9.2007 nor till the non-petitioner''s marriage.

It is made clear that according to Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the non-petitioners are entitled to receive the maintenance till, he attains the age of majority and Non-petitioner No. 2, Pooja till her marriage.

So far as the second contention is concerned the petitioner, has alleged that the non-petitioner No. 1 is leading an adulterous life but has not adduced any evidence in this regard except his own statement.

It is very easy to make such allegation but it is very difficult to substantiate the same. However, substantial proof is necessary to give a finding on this point. Even the witness NAW-2 has not uttered a single word in this regard. Even no such suggestion has been given to the petitioner about her unchastity. Therefore, the second contention of the petitioner cannot be acceded to, Keeping in view the above, this petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. is partly allowed. So far as it relates to respondent No. 2 Pooja, she was a statutory right to maintenance till her marriage and so far as it relates to non-petitioner No. 3 Bholu @ Omkar, he is entitled to get maintenance till he attains the age of majority. (see the case of Subhash Roy Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and Others, and Narayan Rath Vs. Sakuntala Rath and Another,

With this direction, this petition stands disposed of.