By order dated 31.7.1999, learned JMFC after companysidering the matter afresh awarded maintenance to both the appellant and the child.
He also denied having developed illicit relationship with Veenaben.
Their son Hament had died in the road accident in July 1990.
However, maintenance granted to the child respondent No.3 was maintained and amount as awarded to him i.e. Rs.350/ was enhanced to Rs.500/ .
On 23.6.1998 learned JMFC allowed the Claim Petition and granted maintenance.
The respondent No.2 filed a Special Criminal Application No.568/2001 before the Gujarat High Court which by the impugned order held that the appellant was number legally wedded wife of respondent No.2.
By order dated 12.7.2001, learned Additional District Judge, Sabarkatha dismissed the application.
In the Claim Petition name of Veenaben was mentioned as the legal heir and in the Voters List, Ration Card and Provident Fund records, Veenaben was shown as the wife of respondent No.2.
Though initially, the respondent No.2 treated her nicely, thereafter he started ill treating her and she was subjected to mental and physical torture.
Reliance was placed on documents filed by respondent No.2 to companyclude that before the alleged date of marriage between the appellant and respondent No.2, the latter was already married to Veenaben with reference to the documents produced.
A Criminal Revision Application No.65/95 was filed by respondent No.2 against the order dated 31.7.1999.
On enquiry about the reason for such a sudden change in his behaviour, the appellant came to know that respondent No.2 had developed illicit relationship with a lady named Veenaben.
A criminal revision was filed by respondent No.2 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sabaakatha, Dist.
The application was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class hereinafter referred to as the JMFC Himmatnagar.
During the period the appellant stayed with the respondent, she became pregnant and subsequently, a child was born.
Factual position as projected by the appellant is as follows Appellant claims that she was married to respondent No.2 some time in 1994 according to the customary rites and rituals of their caste.
He claimed that actually she was married to him more than 22 years back and two children were born.
Himmatnagar, who by his order dated 26.11.1998 set aside the judgment dated 23.6.1998 as passed by the learned JMFC and remanded the matter to the trial Court for adjudication afresh after affording an opportunity to respondent No.2 to cross examine the witnesses of the appellant.
Respondent No.2 opposed the application by filing written statements taking the stand that the appellant was number his legally married wife and the child respondent No.3 was number his son.
As respondent No.2 neglected the appellant and the child born, an application in terms of Section 125 of the Code was filed claiming maintenance.
The case at hand according to appellant is a classic example of the inadequacies of law in protecting a woman who unwittingly entered into relationships with a married man.
4688 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
A brief reference to the factual position would suffice because essentially the dispute has to be adjudicated with reference to scope and ambit of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
