MAYA RAM NISHAD Vs. JAMUNA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision by the petitioner/husband is directed against the order dated 13. 10. 2006 passed in Criminal Revision No. 194/2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, bemetara, District Durg whereby in a revision preferred by the respondent/wife while setting aside the dismissal of the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. of the respondent/wife herein by the Judicial Magistrate first Class, Bemetara in miscellaneous criminal case No. 1/2004, the petitioner/ husband herein was ordered to pay maintenance of Rs. 1,000 per month to the respondent herein from the date of application.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, marriage between the petitioner/husband and the respondent/wife was solemnized in the year 1982. Gauna ceremony took place in 1983 and out of their marital wedlock, a son namely Tukeshwar was born in 1984. It is also not in dispute that since the year 1985, the respondent/ wife is living separately in her maternal home in village Kongiyakhurd.

(3.) FOR the first time, the respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the cr. P. C. on 23. 10. 2003 on the averment that a year after birth of Tukeshwar, the petitioner/husband started harassing her for bringing money from her father and finally somewhere around the year 1985 she was turned out of her matrimonial house by the petitioner herein. A year after this, the respondent/wife went with her father Hagroo and Kotwar Nemdas to the house of the petitioner where after wrongly confining them inside a room the petitioner forcibly got a document executed by them and refused to keep the respondent. In the hope that in future at some point of time, the petitioner would take her back, the respondent did not lodge a report or take any legal action even after leaving the matrimonial home for 5 to 6 years. The respondent lived with her father who maintained her till his death. Thereafter Motim Bai, maternal aunt of the father of the respondent, maintained her till her death 3 months prior to the filing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr. P. C. The respondent had no means of livelihood and was unable to maintain herself. The petitioner refused to keep the respondent with him despite efforts by the respondent on 12. 10. 2003 and 19. 10. 2003 whereupon application under Section 125 cr. P. C. was filed on 23. 10. 2003. It was pleaded that the petitioner herein was drawing salary of Rs. 9,000 as a Teacher in government service and had around about 12 acres of irrigated agricultural land and other income from business. An amount of Rs. 3,000 as monthly maintenance was claimed.