1. By this common order Criminal Revision No.348/2006 and Criminal Revision No.356/2006 are being disposed of.

2. The applicant Smt. Pushpa Pandey by filing a Criminal Revision No.348/2006 under sections 397 and 401 of CrPC has challenged the correctness and validity of the order dated 10.3.2006 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in Case No.20/2004 by which her application filed under section 125 of CrPC has been rejected.

3. The applicant Suresh Pandey by filing Criminal Revision No.356/2006 has challenged the later part of the order dated 10.3.2006 by which it has been directed that the applicant (Suresh Pandey) shall pay Rs.1,000/- per month by way of maintenance to Master Abhay till he attains the majority.

4. The necessary facts for the disposal of these revisions are that the applicant and her minor son, Master Abhay had filed an application under section 125 of CrPC against the respondent (Suresh Pandey) on the ground that she was married to him as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals on 20.4.1996 at Gwalior. Master Abhay was born out of the wedlock on 22.4.1997. It was alleged that the applicant resided along with the respondent for a period of one and half years and during that period the respondent started making the complaints that his in-laws have not given him the scooter and on this allegation he used to quarrel with her. On 21.11.1997 the applicant along with her child were turned out of the house and a report in this regard was lodged and since then she is residing along with her parents at Gwalior. The applicant has no independent source of income. Master Abhay is studying in Class-I and the parents of the applicant are somehow managing the maintenance of the applicant as well as her child. Earlier the respondent was working as a Constable in Madhya Pradesh SAF and now he is doing business and is earning Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/- per month. Accordingly, a prayer for grant of maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month each to both the applicants was made. Litigation expenses @ Rs.3,500/- was also claimed.

5. The respondent by filing his reply to the application denied that he was married to the applicant on 20.4.1996. He also denied that Master Abhay was born out of the wedlock. He also denied the allegation of demand of scooter. It was further stated by him that the applicant had lodged a false report against him in which he has been acquitted. The applicant is not the legally married wife of the respondent. The respondent was earlier married to one Maya on 23.6.1991 and after the marriage, said Smt. Maya because of some personal reason went back to her parent’s house. Thereafter, the respondent was living all alone and at that time the father of the applicant came to his house and had a talk about the marriage. The fact that the respondent is already married was made known to the father of the applicant and he was also informed that the respondent cannot marry the applicant but still if he wants to send her daughter with him then he can do so. It was further stated by the respondent that as the father of the applicant agreed for sending his daughter (applicant) without any dowry and, therefore, the respondent along with his some relatives went to the house of the applicant and brought her. Thereafter the applicant resided with the respondent only for two days. It was alleged that in connivance with the first wife of the respondent, the applicant had lodged a false report in which he has been acquitted. The applicant is not entitled for maintenance. It was further alleged that the respondent had lost his service because of the false report and now he is surviving on the pension of his mother who is old and infer person. He has no independent source of income. His mother is also not keeping well and he himself is suffering from various diseases and, therefore, he prayed for rejection of the application.

6. The trial Court framed the following issues :

(i) Whether the applicant is the legally wedded wife of the re