Jeevan Singh v. Sangeeta Bai : 2014 (9) RCR(Cri) 1637 : 2014 (1) DMC 585 : 2013 LRC Online 695 (MP)
Section 125-Grant of maintenance-Revision-Second marriage of respondent was not valid in eye of law because her previous husband was alive and no divorce has been established between them-Applicant was neither a valid wife of non-applicant, nor she had any reason to live away from her husband, so that she could get any maintenance from her husband-order granting maintenance set aside-Petition allowed.
Held : The non applicant in his reply denied the allegations made by the applicant. He accepted the fact relating to the compromise between the parties but, no harassment was done by the applicant thereafter. The behaviour of the applicant was not good. She was not leaving her bed for 8 days continuously, without any reason. She was not doing any work in the house and ultimately, she told that she did not want to stay with the non applicant and ultimately, she left the house of the non applicant.
The second contention raised by the non applicant is that the applicant left his house, without any reason. The applicant Sangeeta Bai (P.W.1) and her witnesses told about the harassment done by the non applicant but, the applicant Sangeeta Bai and her uncle accepted that she was not working in the house at all. She was interested to take his food, without doing anything. Uncle of the applicant has accepted that behaviour of the applicant was not good with her husband and parents-in-law. A complaint was made by the parents-in-law to the father and uncle of the applicant at that time and thereafter, the applicant left the house of her husband. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that behaviour of the applicant herself was unnatural towards the non applicant and his parents. She was not ousted but, she herself left the house of her husband and therefore, the learned ACJM has rightly held that the applicant was not entitled to get any maintenance, without living with the non applicant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in considering the overt-act of the applicant when she was residing with her husband.
On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the applicant was neither a valid wife of the non applicant, nor she had any reason to live away from her husband, so that she could get any maintenance from her husband. Consequently, it is a fit case, in which the revision filed by the husband may be accepted and order passed for grant of maintenance by the revisionary Court may be set aside. Since, the applicant was not entitled to get any maintenance, therefore, her petition cannot be accepted. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Sangeeta Bai is hereby dismissed, whereas criminal revision filed by the applicant Jeevan Singh is hereby allowed. The order dated 16.8.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ashtha in criminal revision No.116/2004 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the maintenance application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Sangeeta Bai is also hereby dismissed by confirming the order passed by the learned ACJM, Ashtha.