JUDGMENT N.B. Asthana, J.
1. The revisionists filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the Opp. Party No. 2, which was registered as case No. 322 of 1990 and was allowed on 15.3.1992 by Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar. The revisionist No. 1 was granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 350/- per month while revisionist No. 2, her daughter, was granted maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month w.e.f. 4.5.1990. The Opp. Party No. 2 had contested this application.
2. The Opp. Party No. 2 then filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. stating that some imposter was made to stand as Opp. Party No. 2 and his statement was recorded. He did not appear in those proceedings. He had divorced the revisionist No. 1 on 3.12.1989 and, therefore, the order of maintenance granted on 16.3.1992 is liable to be set aside. Objection was filed by the revisionist No. 1 to this application. This application was rejected holding that the contention of the Opp. Party No. 2 that some imposter was made to file written statement and gave evidence in that case was incorrect. The application as rejected on 13.7.1993. The learned Judge, however, did not decide the question whether the revisionist No. 1 had been divorced on 3.12.1989 as alleged by respondent No. 2. The Opp. Party No. 2 then filed an application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. (Case No. 156 of 1993). Its copy is Annexure (1) to the counter affidavit filed by the Opp. Party No. 2. It was filed on 15.6.1993. It is alleged in this application that on 3.12.1989, he divorced the revisionist, that thereafter he did not have any relationship with her and that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed with false allegations in order to pressurise him. This application was allowed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar on 28.1.1994. The order dated 16.3.1992 granting maintenance allowance to the revisionist No. 1 was set aside. Aggrieved by it the revisionists have come to this Court in revision. The revisionist No. 2 Km. Shama Parveen who is daughter of Opp. Party No. 2 is entitled to receive the maintenance allowance because the order of maintenance passed in her favour was not set aside. She has unnecessarily joined in this revision.
3. As regards revisionist No. 1 it was urged that the Opp. Party No. 2 contested the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and filed a written statement. It was nowhere pleaded in it that he had divorced the revisionist No. 1 on 3.12.1989. Had he really divorced the revisionist No. 1 then this fact would have certainly been stated in the written statement filed in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which has been placed on record. From the record it further appears that Opp. Party No. 2 filed Suit No. 192 of 90 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar on 3.4.1990. The relief claimed in the suit was with respect to restitution of conjugal rights. Had he divorced the revisionist No. 1 on 3.12.1989 then such a suit would not have been filed. These circumstances clearly indicate that the plea taken by the Opp. Party No. 2 that he had divorced the revisionist No. 1 on 3.12.1989 was an after-thought. In the objection filed by the revisionist No. 1 to the application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. It is stated in para 2 that after the divorce the Opp. Party Smt. Shahnaz Parveen had not re-married so far, and the applicant Sri Mohd. Aslam has also not paid the dower debt or Iddat expenses and other expenses etc. which were payable on divorce according to Muslim Personal Law and, therefore the provisions of Section 127 Cr.P.C. have not been attracted in the present case." The learned Trial Court basing its decision on this para ruled that the revisionist No. 1 did not dispute the factum of divorce. A perusal of para 4 would show that all the allegations made in the application from paras 2 to 6 were not admitted and were strongly denied. It would, therefore, clearly indicate that the divorce said to have been given on 3.12.1989 was disputed. It cannot be said that the revisionist No. 1 admitted that she had been divorced as alleged by the Opp. Party No. 2. From the impugned judgment of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, it is clear that he placed reliance upon para 2 of the reply filed by the revisionist without looking into the reply any further and granted the application.
4. The order passed by the Court below is palpably wrong and is based upon non-reading of the reply filed by the revisionist No. 1 This order has, therefore, to be set aside.
5. The revision is allowed. The order dated 28.1.1994 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 156 of 1993 under Section 127 Cr.P.C. is set aside.