CHATRAPAL LAHRE Vs. RAJNI LAHRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 30.11.2015 passed by the Family Court, Janjgir, District JanjgirChampa in M.Cr.C. No.155 of 2014, whereby the Family Court has allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. moved by the Respondents and granted maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of Respondent No.1 and that of Rs. 1,500/- per month in favour of Respondent No.2, total Rs. 3,500/- per month.

(2.) Admittedly, the Respondents are wife and daughter of the Applicant. The daughter is living with mother/Respondent No.1. Marriage between the Applicant and Respondent No.1 was solemnised on 5.2009. Out of their wedlock, total two children took birth. Out of the two children, son Paras is living with father/Applicant. As per the pleadings of Respondent No.1/wife, the Applicant/husband subjected her to cruelty after the marriage for demand of dowry. She told about this to her maternal family members. They tried to inculcate the Applicant. In November, 2011, the Applicant kept son Paras with him and after beating her, who, at that time, was pregnant, ousted her from his house. She came to her maternal house. There, a girl child took birth, but nobody visited her at her maternal house on behalf of the family of the Applicant. She is unable to maintain her. The Applicant/husband possesses 8 acres of agricultural land and he also runs a business of selling of cloths. The Applicant has pleaded that he never made any demand for dowry nor did he ever subject the Respondent No.1/wife to cruelty. She is living separately from him without any reasonable cause. She herself left the matrimonial house. He was not informed about the delivery of the girl child. When he went to the maternal house of the Respondent No.1/wife to bring her back, she refused to come. He has further pleaded that before the marriage, family members of the wife had already accepted Christian religion and he was not told about this fact at the time of marriage. The wife was forcing him to adopt the Christian religion. When the nomenclature of the son was made according to Hindu customs, she got annoyed and left him and her son and returned her maternal house. He is not in possession of any land and he also does not run any business. He is engaged in doing labour work.

(3.) Respondent No.1/wife examined herself along with her brothers Hemlal and Kamleshwar and one other witness Ramnarayan. The Applicant examined himself and one witness Laxman. The Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 30.11.2015, allowed the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and granted maintenance in favour of the Respondents as stated in the first paragraph of this order. Hence, this revision.