JUDGMENT V.D. Chaturvedi, J.
1. This Criminal Revision is preferred against the judgment and order dated October 12, 2004 passed by Sri R.K. Gupta, Family Judge, Azamgarh in Case No. 296 of 1998 Prema Devi v. Phool Chand Yadav whereby he has dismissed the revisionist's petition moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance allowance.
2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision are that the petitioner Smt. Prema Devi filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for her maintenance stating that her marriage with Phool Chand Yadav (respondent No. 2) was held on 1.6.1993 according to Hindu rites and rituals; that she started living with him, discharging her duties as his wife; that the opposite party Phool Chand Yadav demanded a golden Seekari and a Motorcycle and warned that if these items were not given he would burn her alive; that after her Gauna held on 20.5.1994 she again went to her husband's house, but her husband's demands still persisted and he had attempted to kill her by burning her alive and by injecting poison; that on 10.6.1997 the opposite party (Phool Chand Yadav) settled his another marriage with the daughter of Hari Ram of village Rasoolpur, P.S. Khuthan District Jaunpur; that opposite party and Ors. increased the atrocities upon her; that they had beaten her, regarding which a case under Section 498A, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C. was registered; that she was ousted from the house by the opposite party; that she was incapable of maintaining herself whereas her husband had a good income from his profession as an Advocate; that he was a Pradhan also. She prayed for the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month.
3. The opposite party (Phool Chand Yadav) stated in his written statement that his marriage with the petitioner was held in 1990 and Gauna was held in 1993; that at the time of Gauna she had a child of 3 months in her womb which she concealed; that on festival of Guriya she went with her father; that the opposite party went to her paternal house for her Vida but she refused to live with the opposite party's joint family and asked him to live (separately) with her; that he never demanded any ornament, motor cycle or any other item; that on 29.5.1997 a Panchayat was held wherein both the parties agreed to live separately and to marry with any other person of their respective choice; that stipulated amount of Rs. 26,700/- was paid by the opposite party to the petitioner; that the petitioner lodged a case against the opposite party for offence under Section 498A, 342, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act and that the petitioner was leading an adulterous life. On these grounds the petition was requested to be dismissed.
4. The evidence of both the parties was recorded, whereafter the learned Judge dismissed the petition holding that(the revisionist) Prema Devi was the second wife of Phool Chand Yadav and thus was not a legally wedded wife and was not entitled to get the maintenance allowance.
5. I have heard Sri R.P. Yadav, learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A for the state. Sri D.K. Singh the counsel for opposite party No. 2 (Phool Chand Yadav) was not present even on the revision of the list, hence he could not be heard. I have perused the record.
6. The plea that respondent Phool Chand Yadav already had a married wife before his marriage with the revisionist was never taken by the respondent in his written statement. The respondent Phool Chand Yadav went beyond his pleading in stating that he was already married with a woman named Urmila and that Prema Devi was his second wife. This plea of second marriage was first time taken at the stage of evidence. In the like way the respondent led the evidence beyond the pleading that Prema Devi had remarried one Om Prakash. This plea was also not taken in his written statement. The trial Judge dismissed the petition on the former plea. It is well settled principle of law that a party cannot go beyond his pleading. The proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are quasi-civil proceedings hence the parties were bound by their pleadings. They were not supposed to raise any plea other than the pleas mentioned in their respective pleadings. The learned trial Judge, therefore, erred in basing his judgment on a plea which was never pleaded in the written statement by the respondent. The judgment of the trial court, therefore, cannot be allowed to sustain on this very ground.
7. Beside, in matters of defence plea of aforesaid nature, that the petitioner's marriage with opposite party was void on the ground of second marriage, the burden heavily lies upon the opposite party to prove that his marriage with the alleged first wife was strictly in accordance with the religious rituals and that at the time of his marriage with the petitioner, the first wife was alive and was not divorced. He must also prove that the fact of the first marriage was brought to the notice of the petitioner before her marriage. In the case in hand the opposite party did not produce any such evidence in support of his plea. Hence for want of such plea in written statement and also for want of the adequate evidence on above mentioned necessary points, the opposite party utterly failed to prove that his marriage with the petitioner Prema Devi was a void marriage. The learned Trial Judge failed in taking these points in his consideration. The Trial Judge's conclusion that Smt. Prema Devi was not the legally wedded wife of Phool Chand Yadav suffers from gross illegality. It is, therefore, set aside.
8. The opposite party Phool Chand Yadav, contrary to the above plea, admitted in para 2 of his written statement that his marriage with Prema Devi was held in 1990. I, therefore, hold that the respondent's marriage with the revisionist was not an illegal marriage. I, hold that she was the "wife" of respondent No. 2 for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
9. In Parwati Rani Sahoo v. Bishupada Sahoo the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where the findings are negative, the High Court would entertain the revision, revaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion whether the finding or the conclusion reached by the Magistrate are legally sustainable or not, as negative finding has evil consequences on the life of both, the child and the woman.
10. I, therefore, proceed to evaluate the evidence to conclude whether the petitioner was entitled or not for the maintenance allowance (under Section 125 Cr.P.C).
11. It is admitted by the respondent in his written statement that he was an Advocate at the time of his Gauna with the petitioner. He also admitted in his statement that he was teaching in an Inter College Malipur District Ambedkar Nagar. Petitioner Prema Devi also deposed that opposite party was an Advocate and was teaching in school. In these circumstances the respondent No. 2 is deemed to have sufficient means to maintain his wife.
12. The opposite party stated neither in his statement nor in his pleading that the petitioner was capable of maintaining herself whereas the petitioner has stated in para 9 of her petition that she was unable to maintain herself. She deposed that she did not have any skill and her father was poor. The presumption also lies in favour of the women that they are not capable of maintaining themselves unless otherwise proved. I, therefore, hold that the petitioner Smt. Prema Devi was unable to maintain herself.
13. The respondent in para 8 of his written statement stated that the petitioner was leading an adulterous life. In support of this plea he stated that when Smt. Prema Devi came to his house after Gauna she was having a child of 3 months in her womb. This is an allegations of serious nature. Such allegations were bound to be proved by cogent and convincing evidence. A mere statement of the aforesaid effect by the opposite party (whose interest lies in getting the petition dismissed) goes to show that the allegation has no legs. The opposite party Phool Chand Yadav stated in his examination in chief that Prema Devi was examined by a lady doctor who told that Prema Devi was pregnant by 3 months. This lady doctor was never produced in court nor her name, place of practice or any other particulars were stated by Phool Chand Yadav in his evidence. Nor he produced any evidence that he had no contract with Prema Devi during the three months past from the date of her medical examination. The allegation made by Phool Chand Yadav against the character of Smt. Prema Devi is, therefore, baseless and appears to be a creation of the legal advice to escape from the liability to maintain the petitioner. Levelling of such wild allegations amount to mental cruelty which in turn justifies the separate living of Prema Devi. There is no evidence that Phool Chand Yadav is giving any maintenance allowance to Prema Devi. I, therefore, also hold that Phool Chand Yadav is neglecting to maintain his wife.
14. In view of what has been discussed above, I hold that Smt. Prema Devi is entitled to get maintenance allowance from her husband Phool Chand Yadav. The profession or a job admitted by Phool Chand Yadav suggests that he may easily give Rs. 1000/- per month to the petitioner as maintenance allowance which is an appropriate amount in the circumstances of the case.
15. The impugned judgment dated October 12, 2004 given by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court is set aside. Sri Phool Chand Yadav is held liable to pay the maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month to Smt. Prema Devi from the date of this judgment. Since she got no maintenance allowance during the pendency of the petition in the trial court and during the pendency of this revision, hence I also order that Phool Chand Yadav will pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for the said period. This amount would be inclusive of the expenses of the litigation.
16. The petition is allowed as above.