LEELAWATI Vs. RAMDHYAN KUSHWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.07.2006 passed by Family Court, Ambikapur in Misc. Criminal Case No. 14/2005 dismissing the application filed by the applicant/wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking maintenance from the respondent/husband.

(2.) In the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the applicant/wife has pleaded that on 12.02.1982 she was married to the respondent herein as per the Hindu traditions, and that in the year 1987 after performing Gauna ceremony she came to her matrimonial home and started living there. She has further taken a plea that her husband (respondent herein) started harassing her mentally and physically and that finally in the year 1991-92 he refused to keep her with him, as a result of which she started living with her parents. The applicant further pleaded that in the year 1992-93 the respondent/husband married another woman namely Manju Kushwaha. The applicant/wife has claimed maintenance from the respondent/husband inter alia on the ground that she has no source of income to maintain herself; the respondent/husband being an employee of Co-operative society was having the monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-; he was also having five acres of agriculture land through which he gets additional income of Rs. 70,000/- per annum and therefore, she was entitled to receive Rs. 3,000/- per month from her husband as maintenances.

(3.) Refuting the averments of the applicant/wife, it has been put forth by the respondent/husband that as at the time of marriage the applicant/wife was in her minority, his marriage with her was illegal. He has specified that at the time of marriage, the applicant/wife was 12 years one month and 26 days of age. It is stated that even after Gauna ceremony the parents of the applicant/wife did not send her to live with him and even after his insistence, the parents of the applicant/wife remained adamant in not sending her to his house. The respondent/husband even made an application under Section 98 CrPC for getting the custody of his wife but in vain. However, while replying to the said application, the applicant/wife has admitted that since she was minor at the time of marriage, it was an illegal one.