JASJIT KAUR Vs. SARABJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed this petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The plaintiff and the defendant were married on 19.11.2003 in accordance with Sikh rites and are stated to have started living in the premises known as 101, Pleasant View Group Housing Society, Sector 14, Vashi, New Mumbai. It is stated that both the plaintiff and the defendant had a previous marriage which had been dissolved. The plaintiff had a child from the first marriage. Another child was born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and the defendant.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant started ill-treating and harassing her on account of dowry and even physically assaulted her. The plaintiff on account of such conduct of the defendant, lodged a police complaint dated 17.02.2005 and an FIR was registered. The parents of the plaintiff took away the plaintiff on 18.02.2005 for the aforesaid reason and since then the parties have been living separately. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs 25,000 per month as maintenance.

(3.) The defendant entered appearance and filed the written statement. The plaintiff had also filed an application for interim maintenance and thus, the statement of the defendant was recorded on 02.02.2006. On such examination, the defendant stated that he was residing at Sector 12, Vashi, Navi Mumbai and had taken the said premises on rent at Rs 1,000 per month. The defendant claimed that he was running a STD booth in Sector 14, Vashi Mumbai. The defendant deposed that there were properties owned by his father in pursuance to the Will. The same did not devolve on him and the Will had been duly probated vide orders dated 26.03.2003. On the subsequent date, the witness also deposed that his son from marriage with the plaintiff was living with him, whose care was taken in his absence by his old servant. The father of the defendant had started a shop of shoe making in 1999 and after his demise defendant was running the shop along with his mother. The STD booth run by the defendant was opposite to the shop.