Court No. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 223 of 1995 Revisionist :- Smt. Usha Devi Opposite Party :- Munendra Pal Singh And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Veer Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,P.N.Gangwar
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
No one is present on behalf of the revisionist even in revised list. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present. Perused the record.
It appears that on earlier occasions, the case has been adjourned on the basis of illness slip of learned counsel for opposite party. Since the date of admission of this revision i.e. 10.7.1995, no one is appearing on behalf of the revisionist.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 01.12.1994 passed by Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 883 of 1992, under section 125 Cr.P.C. by which, the maintenance application of revisionist has been rejected.
Against the said impugned order, this revision has been filed on the ground that maintenance application has been illegally rejected.
Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the marriage with opposite party no. 1 was proved by the revisionist and it was also proved that by their wedlock a son aged about two and half years at present was born. The finding with regard to the fact that no marriage took place in between them is perverse and is based on surmises and conjectures. The opposite party no. 1 is simply avoiding to pay maintenance for which revisionist is entitled, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside, hence maintenance be granted in favour of the revisionist.
From perusal of impugned order, it appears that the admitted fact from the side of the revisionist was that she was married with elder brother of opposite party no. 1 and after marriage when her husband died, a marriage was solemnized with opposite party no. 1, who is avoiding maintenance to her and this became reason for filing this application.
It was also stated in the application that after seven years of first marriage, her husband died and, therefore, her in-laws remarried her with the younger brother of her husband keeping in view the young age of the revisionist.
The fact of the marriage was denied by the opposite party no. 1 and it was stated that at the time of death of elder brother, the opposite party no. 1 was aged about fourteen and half years old and he was appearing in High School Examination, therefore, no such marriage took place between them.
The learned trial court found on the evidence that after the death of her husband, the revisionist left her in-laws and started living with her parents. As many as four witnesses were examined from the side of the husband who established that no such marriage took place between them. The learned trial court also found discrepancy and material contradiction in the statement of witnesses produced by the revisionist and, therefore, the trial court came to the conclusion that revisionist was not married with opposite party no. 1, hence rejected the application of the revisionist.
From perusal of impugned judgement, it appears that judgement of learned Judge, Family Court is based on the evidence on record and there is no reason to disturb the finding given on the point of marriage of both. When it was determined that revisionist was not married with the opposite party no. 1, there was no question of awarding any maintenance against opposite party in favour of revisionist.
As pointed out earlier that since filing of this revision, no one is appearing from the side of the revisionist and also in view of what has been stated above, I see no irregularity or illegality or jurisdictional error or any incorrectness on the conclusion given by learned family court on the point of marriage of both.
In view of above, I find that revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 RCT/-