USHA @ GAYATRI CHANDROSA Vs. BHESHRAM CHANDROSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act has been preferred challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the Family Court, Raigarh rejecting the applicants' application under Section 125 CrPC.

(2.) The applicants preferred the subject application seeking grant of maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each on submission that applicant No.1 and the non-applicant were married on 25.4.1988. They had 3 issues namely, son Lokesh, aged 18 years; daughter Megha, aged 16 years and applicant No.2 Ankit, aged 10 years. While Lokesh and Megha are residing with the non-applicant, Ankit is residing with applicant No.1. The non-applicant is employed with STPP, CG Electricity Board, Darri and is earning Rs.25,000/- per month (in the year 2007). When the father of applicant No.1 gifted one motorcycle in the marriage of younger sister of applicant No.1, the non-applicant started treating her with cruelty by saying that he was not gifted motorcycle at the time of marriage. He started demanding Rs.1,50,000/- as dowry. The applicant No.1 somehow sustained cruelty and torture as Hindu wife, but when it became unbearable, she tried to resist. Her father also tried to convince the non-applicant to stop illtreating her, but instead of stopping cruelty, the non-applicant brought them to her parental house and left the applicants at Raigarh and since thereafter she is residing at Raigarh. The non-applicant is also not paying any amount towards maintenance and education of the applicant No.2.

(3.) The non-applicant resisted the application on submission that the applicants are making false allegations after 19 years of marriage. On one occasion, the applicant No.1 went to Kartala along with her friend Usha Mandal for 2 days but stayed there for 8 days. The applicant No.1 is a stubborn and arrogant lady. She used to raise quarrel on trivial issues and has left the marital home willingly. The applicant No.1, in fact, is desirous of living with a Christian boy, who resides in front of their house with whom she has illicit relations. The applicant No.1 is not applying vermilion on her forehead and is not wearing Mangalsutra, therefore, for all these reasons, she is not entitled for maintenance.