SANGEETA KUMARI & ANR Vs. SHITTAL PARSAD NEKIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 26.03.2014 of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Courts by which in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance @ Rs. 7,500/- p.m. was granted to petitioner No.2 only declining it to the petitioner No.1. The revision petition is contested by the respondent.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The petitioners had filed proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent. The petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and respondent appeared as RW-1 in the said proceedings. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciating the evidence on record, the trial court by the impugned order declined to award any maintenance to petitioner No.1 as she did not comply with the decree passed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. It was also noted by the learned trial court that petitioner No.1 despite having qualification did not give cogent reasons for not getting any employment.

(3.) The relationship between the parties is not at dispute. The petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and petitioner No.2 is their child. Petitioner No.2 is in petitioner No.1's custody and is getting education. In her petition, the petitioner No.1 claimed Rs. 5,000/- p.m. as maintenance for the child. However, the trial court by the impugned order granted maintenance @ Rs. 7,500/- p.m. No cogent evidence has emerged to infer as to if this amount of Rs. 7,500/- p.m. is not sufficient for the maintenance of the child. No further enhancement is called for at this stage.