This criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner

under Section 19(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

being crestfallen by the order dated 07.01.2020 passed by the

learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in M.J.C. No.

813/2017, whereby the learned Family Court has awarded the

maintenance of Rs.27,000/- in favour of respondent/Sarika from

the date of order i.e. 07.01.2020.

2.

The facts in brief are that the marriage was solemnized

between petitioner and respondent on 13.07.2013. Before this

marriage, the respondent No. 1 had been married with one

Manish Gupta at Khargone. Manish Gupta was a government

servant. When respondent No. 1 got pregnant and told her

husband Manish Gupta, he disclosed that he has already married,

his wife name is Naveena Sutar, so the marriage between them is

illicit. The respondent No. 1 gave birth a son namely

Prakhar/respondent No. 2. Her husband Manish Gupta abandoned

her saying that “nothing is remained to be continued between us,

I took marriage with her with my interest”. Meanwhile, brother of

the respondent No. 1, uploaded information regarding respondent

No. 1/wife and respondent No. 2/Son on internet.

3.

On that information, the petitioner and his family contacted

respondent No. 1 and informed her that the petitioner's wife has

expired and now, he has two unmarried daughters, he has one

3

house, in which one shop is situated, also a shop of jewellery in

Sarafa “Krishnafirm”, Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- earning is there

from this shop. An apartment was also given on rent, from all

sources, petitioner is earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month. The

petitioner and his family was informed about marriage of

respondent No. 1/wife that respondent No. 1/wife was married

with one Manish Gupta, but as Manish Gupta was already

married, the marriage was null and void, hence, divorce decree

could not be taken and respondent No. 1/wife was residing at

home for last 8 years. The condition was put before the petitioner

that he has to give his name as father to the respondent No. 2.

Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 got married with

each other on 13.07.2013. The respondent No. 1 started residing

with petitioner alongwith petitioner's two daughters in Jaipur. The

petitioner said to her, she has no need for any maintenance, so

that, she could not attend the hearing of the case for recording her

statement which was filed by her against Manish Gupta. The

petitioner gave his name to respondent No. 2.

4.

After 2-3 years of their marriage, two daughters of the

petitioner, his brother and sister-in-law started cruelty with

respondent No. 1 and demanded dowry and also did some black-

magic activities. In the year 2016, marriage was finalized of one

daughter of the petitioner namely Sheep, the petitioner demanded

money from respondent No. 1/Wife. Petitioner got the abortion

done of respondent N. 1 twice in the year 2016. The respondent

No. 1 filed a report at Mahila Thana, Indore against him. It is

stated that the respondent is not capable to maintain herself and

4

her son, the petitioner is a capable man but till date he did not

maintain or pay expenses of respondents, therefore, the

respondent has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

for maintenance which has been allowed by awarding the

maintenance of Rs.27,000/- to the respondent No.1 and rejected

the application filed on behalf of respondent No. 2.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is

clearly mentioned in the impugned order as admitted fact that the

respondent was married with one Manish Gupta in the year 2005

and from the wedlock, she born a child namely Prakhar. She also

admitted that she had not obtained divorce decree from her earlier

husband Manish Gupta because he has already been married due

to which, marriage of respondent No. 1 with Manish Gupta was

said to be null and void. These facts establish that the respondent

No. 1 has not taken divorce of her first marriage. It is further

su