ANJU GARG Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellants herein are the wife and the son of the respondent. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 10/9/2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision No. 05/2017, whereby the High Court has dismissed the Revision application filed by the appellants, challenging the order passed by the District Judge, Family Court-1, Faridabad, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the "Family Court"). The Family Court vide order dtd. 9/12/2016 had dismissed the Maintenance Petition filed by the appellants under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C., qua the appellant no. 1 -wife (original applicant no. 1) and her daughter Ms. Megha Garg (original applicant no. 2), and had allowed the application qua the son-appellant no. 2 (original applicant no.3) granting him maintenance allowance of Rs.6,000.00 per month from the date of filing of application till he attained the age of 18 years.

(3.) The short facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that the appellant no.1 and the respondent had married on 7/12/1991 as per the Hindu rites and out of the said wedlock, two children i.e., daughter Megha Garg and son Rachit Garg were born on 10/10/1992 and 11/4/1999 respectively. The appellants (original applicants) filed the Maintenance Petition under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent alleging inter-alia that the respondent was subjecting the appellant-wife to utmost cruelty and physical and mental torture. As a result thereof, she had to leave her matrimonial home along with children time and again. Allegations were also made against the respondent that he was demanding Rs. One crore as dowry from the father of the appellant no. 1. Though, her father had given him Rs.2,00,000.00 in 2005, and had also made payment of Rs.4,50,000.00 to one Rajdip Soan Industries, on behalf of the respondent to pay off the loan, the respondent had continued to harass the appellant. Ultimately, the appellant along with her children left the matrimonial home in 2010 and started residing in a rental premises. According to the appellants-applicants, the respondent had failed and neglected to maintain them, and they being unable to maintain themselves, the Maintenance Petition under sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed.