RAHUL TIWARI Vs. D. SHRUTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. 1. The petition has been brought challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of order dated 21.5.2018 passed by the Family Court, Raipur in M.J.C. No.78/2016 allowing the application of respondent under Section 125 CrPC and granting maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to her.

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for applicant, that the impugned order is totally erroneous and illegal. The applicant was granted interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/-. Subsequent to which she has been granted maintenance of Rs.20,000/-, which is a huge difference and without any basis. After marriage, the respondent (wife) resided with the applicant for a period of 7 months only. Respondent is willingly residing in her parental house without any sufficient cause. The allegation of demand of dowry, as alleged by the respondent in her application, has not been proved in evidence and, further, there is no such finding in the impugned order that any dowry demand was made by the applicant from the respondent. Referring to the document Ex.D4 which is record of proceeding before the counselors, it is submitted that in this proceeding there is no mention of any demand of dowry. Hence, the respondent has no entitlement for grant of maintenance under Section 125(4) of CrPC. The learned Family Court has committed error in holding her entitlement. It is also submitted that the learned Family Court has erroneously held that the applicant is a man of sufficient means. It was the pleading of the applicant that he plays Jhunjhuna (a musical instrument) in band party, therefore, the applicant is unable to make payment of the huge amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to the respondent. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Deb Narayan Halder v. Smt. Anushree Halder , 2003 AIR(SC) 3174. It is submitted that if the wife leaves her matrimonial house without any justifiable reasons, she has no entitlement for maintenance. Therefore, this is a similar case and the respondent has no entitlement for maintenance. The revision petition be allowed and the impugned order be set aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent opposes the submissions and submits that the learned Family Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order. The respondent has clearly proved her entitlement for maintenance by proving that she was tortured for demand of dowry by the applicants and thereby she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and take shelter in her parental home, hence, she has sufficient cause for living separate. The respondent had filed complaint in Mahila Thana because of which the counseling procedure was taken up. Placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Kachwaha and others v. Anil Kachwaha , 2014 16 SCC 715 it is submitted that the applicant has no ground to maintain this revision petition which may be dismissed.