Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 23.01.2012 passed by the Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 323 of 2006 (783 of 2004), Smt. Annpurna and one another Vs. Kailash Narain Johari, whereby the application moved under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for awarding maintenance has been rejected.

2. In the grounds of revision, it has been mentioned that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily without considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revisionists as well as, Smt. Sadhna Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2 and perused the record.

4. It is revealed from perusal of the record that an application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code was moved by the revisionists with the allegations that she was legally wedded wife of O.P. No. 2, whom she had married 4 years prior to filing the application on 24.9.2005 at Kanpur Nagar. The Revisionist No. 2 was real son of the Revisionist No. 1, who was adopted son of opposite party No. 2. The first marriage was performed of the Revisionist No. 1 with Ravi Shukla from whom she had taken divorce on false representation made by the opposite party No. 2 that he was unmarried and would marry the Revisionist No. 1 and her son would also be adopted by him. Pursuant to this the Revisionist No. 1 married opposite party No. 2 and the Revisionist No. 2 was his adopted son. After solemnisation of their marriage, she came to know that the opposite party No. 2 was already married, having a wife and two daughters and when she enquired about it from opposite party No. 2, he became annoyed, had beaten her and stated that he had married her due to greed for her property. Thereafter, the behaviour of the opposite party No. 2 became cruel towards her and started building pressure upon her that she should exert pressure upon her parents to get him a house purchased. Thereafter, her parents got a house purchased and also got construction made thereon, despite that the greed of the opposite party No. 2 did not stop and the opposite party No. 2 started exerting pressure upon her that she should sell that plot and the amount of consideration of the said sale should be fix-deposited in the name of his first wife and children. Upon her refusing to do so, the opposite party No. 2 deserted her and started living with his first wife and children. He did not give any maintenance amount to the Revisionist No. 1 despite the fact that she had no source of income and that revisionist No. 2 also needed support as he was studying in Class IV. She claimed Rs. 5000/- per month for herself and the same amount for her son as maintenance amount as the opposite party No. 2 was employed as a senior engineer in Railways who was earning around Rs. 27,000/- per month as salary and over and above that he was earning around Rs. 15,000/- - 20,000/- per month illegal money.

5. The opposite party No. 2 refuting the claim of the revisionists filed objection dated 24.9.2005 stating therein that the Revisionist No. 1 never married him nor did they ever live like husband and wife. The opposite party No. 2 had married Smt. Meena Jauhari on 29.11.1985, who is still alive and he was residing with her. He had never adopted Revisionist No. 2. The revisionist No. 1 is a lady of loose character. She had never taken divorce from her husband Ravi Shukla. She is out to blackmail him and wants to extort money from him by setting up a concocted story. No details have been given by her of the purchase of plot, which she alleges that opposite party No. 2 was pressurising her to sell. He was residing in Railway Colony in an allotted accommodation with his wife. The revisionist No. 1 can claim maintenance from her husband. He does not earn Rs. 27,000/- per month. A case No. 194 of 2001, Smt. Annpurna vs Ravi Shukla was filed by revision