`IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Only a legally wedded wife can claim maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
(2) Decree of divorce can only be granted by Court and divorce by agreement is not valid in eyes of law.

ORDER

Rajendra Kumar (Verma), J.—This criminal Revision has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.03.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Singrauli, in MJCR No. 120/2018 whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent/wife has been partly allowed and the petitioner/husband has been directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife from the date of application dated 27.09.2018.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the petitioner/husband and respondent/wife has been solemnized on 29.03.2017 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Amlori Shishu Mandir under the Mukhya Mantri Kanya Daan Yojana. Since the date of marriage, petitioner started to make pressure on the respondent to bring dowry from her parental home and when she denied, petitioner started to torture her and lastly he oust the respondent from his house on 11.08.2017. When no ground was left, respondent/wife file an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Singrauli (M.P.) as MJCR No. 120/2018 which was partly allowed vide order dated 25.03.2022, directing the petitioner/husband to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, instant Criminal Revision has been preferred.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent has been solemnized on 29.03.2017 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Amlori Shishu Mandir under the scheme of Mukhya Mantri Kanya Daan Yojana. It is further submitted that the respondent/wife has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Singrauli, stating therein that, from the date of marriage, respondent (petitioner herein) used to misbehave with the applicant (respondent herein) for demand of dowry, she has been ousted on 11.08.2017 from her matrimonial house and since then, she is residing with her parents. Respondent is earning Rs.6,00,000/- from his agricultural business and also have a Pakka House and earning Rs.15,000/- per month on rent from that house and claiming Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance alongwith litigation fee.

4. Petitioner appeared before the learned Family Court and submitted his reply stating therein that there was a settlement between the petitioner and respondent to get money and advantage of Rs.20,000/- from the scheme of Mukhya Mantri Kanya Daan Yojana which was being paid to the spouse who were intended to marry under the scheme. It is further submitted that the respondent has already married with one Sunil Kumar Gupta in the year, 2006-07 and after the lapse of 05-06 years, they both have been separated because of family dispute. Without taking divorce from the first husband, she cannot be said to be the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. On that basis alone, the application for maintenance is not maintainable.

5. It is also submitted that respondent/wife has sufficient means of income and is earning sufficiently to maintain herself. She is blackmailing the petitioner/husband and is residing in her parental home. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.03.2022.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent has supported the impugned order and oppose the prayer of petitioner and prayed for its rejection.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad on facts, bad in law, perverse, contrary and liable to be set-aside. Learned trial Court has totally ignored the unavailability of fundamental elements and passed the emotional order providing the maintenance amount. It is also submitted that, the learned Family Court has failed to consider the evidence on record and also the reply submitted by the applicant. The