NIDHI NAGWANSHI Vs. HIMANSHU JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant revision has been preferred against the order dated 1.8.2016 passed by the 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Durg in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.96 of 2016, whereby the application filed by the Applicant under Section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been partly allowed and the Family Court has granted her monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/-.

(2.) As per the case of the Applicant, her marriage with the Respondent was solemnised on 7.6.2014. After the marriage, the Applicant was subjected to cruelty by the Respondent and his parents for demand of dowry. They demanded Rupees Five Lakhs from the parents of the Applicant. On 13.11.2015, the Respondent left the Applicant at her maternal house and returned alone. On being inculcated, he took her back to her matrimonial house at Bengaluru. Thereafter, on 5.12.2015, the Respondent took the Applicant with him at her work place in United States of America. There also, he subjected her to physical and mental harassment. He had been transferring her salary in his bank account. On 3.1.02016, he tried to commit her murder. She filed a complaint before the police as a result of which he was arrested. Thereafter, he went to his friend's place. After that incident, he never came back to her. With the help of her friend, she returned to India and lodged a report against him at Durg. She is unable to maintain herself. He is getting monthly salary of Rs.5,20,000/-. He is neglecting her maintenance. The Respondent/husband, after service of notice, did not appear before the Family Court. Therefore, ex parte proceeding was done in the matter and after taking ex parte evidence, vide impugned order dated 1.8.2016, the Family Court granted monthly maintenance of Rs.30,000/- in favour of the Applicant/wife. Hence, this revision by the wife on the ground that the Respondent is leading a grand and luxurious life without any other responsibility of anyone. Looking to the salary/financial status of the Respondent/husband and social status of both the parties, the monthly maintenance granted to her by the Family Court is on much lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably.

(3.) Though the Respondent/husband was ex parte before the Family Court and his reply was not filed there, in the instant revision a reply has been filed by him wherein it is stated that the job of the Respondent/husband is contractual in the United States of America for a period of 3 years. Thereafter, the Respondent/husband is to join his parent employer in India and here he will be paid remuneration in Indian currency which obviously will be far lesser than what he is currently receiving in the United States of America. It is further submitted by the Respondent/husband that presently he is residing in the United States of America where the cost of living based upon the price index is very high in comparison to India and after spending for his basic needs, he is able to save only 700 U.S. Dollars. It is further submitted by the Respondent in the reply that the Applicant/wife is well educated. She had earlier worked in India and also in United Stated of America and was getting handsome salary. She is capable to maintain herself. She is residing separately from him without any sufficient cause. Therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from him.