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

3

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.

4

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 respondent/wife is a married lady