GEETA SONI Vs. OMPRAKASH SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and decree dated 22.6.2011 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg, in Civil MJC No.37/09, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 for grant of maintenance @ Rs. 10,000.00 p.m. from the respondent, has been rejected.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are as follows: That marriage between the parties was solemnized on 2.7.2002 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies at Raipur and out of their wedlock, a daughter named Ku. Jyoti was born on 31,3.2003. The appellant is residing separately at her parental home at Raipur since 9.3.2006. The appellant had lodged an FIR against the respondent and his family members, on the basis of which a criminal case was instituted against them for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and after trial, they have been acquitted of the said charge. The respondent had moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights and the same has been rejected. The appellant had filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance for herself and her daughter Ku. Jyoti, which was allowed and maintenance @ Rs.2000.00p.m. was granted in their favour, which, on revision being preferred by the respondent, was modified and set aside so far as grant of maintenance to the appellant/wife was concerned.

(3.) THE respondent/husband, in his written statement, denying the averments made in the application under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short "the Act, 1956"), averred that the appellant is a stubborn, quarrelsome and short tempered woman, who often used to quarrel over trivial issues "with the respondent and his parents and used to avoid the household chores. Whenever the respondent and his parents used to advice her to behave properly, she used to threaten them to implicate in a false dowry case. She had left the matrimonial home of her own accord. Though the respondent and his family members tried to bring her back on number of occasions, but she herself does not want to live with the respondent. None of the family members of the appellant had ever come to drop the appellant at her matrimonial home. The respondent had never tortured the appellant in any way. The expenses incurred in delivery of the child were borne by the respondent himself. Neither any meeting of the society was held nor father of the appellant had ever come to settle the matter. The respondent is an innocent person, who is a labour by profession and his earning is Rs.40-50 per day only. He used to take proper care of his wife (appellant) and daughter Ku. Jyoti. The appellant is an educated woman, she has studied upto Class-X and also does the work of sewing and weaving, for which she had obtained diploma also. The respondent is ready to keep the appellant, however, she herself does not want to live with him, therefore, the application under Section 18 of the Act, 1956 is liable to be rejected.