CHANCHAL VERMA Vs. CHANDRAKANT VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been preferred against the order dtd. 19/2/2020 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Misc. Criminal Case No. 996/2019 whereby interim maintenance has been granted in favour of applicants No. 2 and 3 but declined to grant the same in favour of applicant No. 1/wife.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the applicants, who are wife and children of respondent, respectively, would submit that applicant No. 1 and respondent are legally wedded wife and husband and applicants No. 2 and 3 are their daughters. He submits that applicants have filed an application under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg being Misc. Criminal Case No. 996/2019, in which, they have also filed an application for grant of interim maintenance. It is submitted that by the impugned order, interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000.00 and Rs.2,000.00, was granted in favour of applicants No. 2 and 3, respectively but the same was denied in respect of applicant No. 1. It is further submitted that it is not in dispute in this case that applicant No. 1 and respondent are legally wedded wife and husband and due to the cruelty and harassment meted out by the respondent/husband, which becomes unbearable, she alongwith her daughters has left the company of respondent/husband on 4/6/2019 after making written information to the concerned police Station of Bengaluru (Karnataka), thereafter, she is residing at Durg along with her daughters at her parental house and she has no source of income to earn her livelihood but the respondent/husband, who is working as Loco Pilot in the Railway Department, getting about Rs.1,00,000.00 per month as salary, despite that the learned Family Court has declined to grant interim maintenance in favour of applicant No. 1/wife holding that she has deserted the respondent/husband with her own wish and without any valid and sufficient reason, she is living in her parental house whereas this is a question of fact, which could be decided on merits, hence, applicant No. 1, being wife of respondent, ought to have given interim maintenance to the tune of Rs.15,000.00 per month, which has been denied by learned Family Court, which is not in accordance with proviso to Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is prayed that this revision petition may be allowed and the applicant No. 1 may be granted interim maintenance for her livelihood till disposal of the main proceedings under Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) Despite service of dasti notice to respondent, neither he appeared before this Court nor representation is made on his behalf.