SURESH CHANDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) <DJG>DHARAM VEER, J.</DJG> This criminal revision, preferred under section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.) r/w Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Didihat, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate has allowed the application moved by respondent no.2/wife u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.1,000/- per month for maintenance of respondent no.2 and Rs.500/- per month each for maintenance of respondent nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 (in total Rs.3,000/- per month), from the date of order. The amount of maintenance was directed to be paid by the 10th of each month. In case of default of two consecutive installments, it was directed that the respondent no.2 would be at liberty to recover the entire amount in lump sum.

(2.) List has been revised. None is present for the revisionist. I have heard Mr. Amit Bhatt, learned Addl. GA for the State and Mr. Dependra Singh Patni, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 6. Perused the entire material available on file.

(3.) In brief, the facts of the case are that Smt. Sheela Devi (respondent no.2) moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that she got married with the revisionist in the year 1992 as per Hindu RITES. She further stated that the behaviour of the revisionist was normal with her up to two years but after that the revisionist started harassing her physically and mentally. It is further alleged that the revisionist and her mother-in-law used to harass her for the demand of dowry. It is further stated that there are four minor children (two sons and two daughters) out of the wedlock. The revisionist also used to commit marpeet with the children. It is further alleged that in July 2004 the revisionist kept a mistress in his house and asked her (respondent no.2) to leave the house. In this regard, a panchayat was also held in order to solve the matter between them but on 6.11.2004 the revisionist ousted the respondent no.2 along with the children. It is further stated that since then the respondent no.2 and her children are residing at her parental house. It is further stated that she is having no source of income and is unable to maintain herself and her children. On the other hand, the revisionist's economic condition is very sound. He has about 10 arces of land and also running flour mill, Dhan machine, oil machine etc. and from all these sources, he earns Rs.20,000/- per month. Besides this, he is also having residential house. With all these averments, an amount of Rs.13,000/- per month was sought by respondent no.2 for maintenance of herself and her children.