LAWS(UTN)-2019-8-92

DEVI DUTT CHANDOLA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Decided On August 20, 2019
Devi Dutt Chandola Appellant
V/S
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the two criminal revisions, which are arising out of the common judgement dated 26th April 2019, as rendered by the Family Judge, Nainital Camp, Ramnagar District Nainital in Criminal Case No. 35 of 2017, Smt. Mamta Bisht Chandola v. Devi Dutt Chandola, wherein the respondent No. 2 of Criminal Revision No. 361 of 2019, Devi Dutt Chandola v. State of Uttarakhand and others, has invoked the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.PC for the grant of maintenance of Rs. 1.00 lakh per month for herself and for her minor daughter Aishwarya, who was 4- 1/2 years as on 28th January 2017 i.e the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.PC.

(2.) The brief facts, as it emerges from the rival pleadings which was raised by the parties before the learned Family Court, it was to the effect that the true facts which are admitted between the parties is that the parties admit that they have voluntarily solemnized the marriage with each other on 26th August 2009 at the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate at Ramnagar, District Nainital. According to the averments, which have been made in the application under Section 125 CrPC by the respondent-wife of Revision No. 361 of 2019 was that the said marriage was solemnized in that fashion after the consent being granted by the parents of the applicant and the opposite party husband, to the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was her allegation that the in-laws of the applicant were not satisfied with the dowry, which was provided by the parents of the applicant-wife and consequently it has resulted into harassment at the hands of the revisionist-husband (CRLR No. 361 of 2019) and his family members.

(3.) Further, it is not in dispute that as a consequence of the marriage, a daughter Aishwarya was born in the year 2012; but on account of the atrocities which was being exercised by the revisionist-husband, it was contended by the respondent No. 2 (wife), that when she was physically assaulted by the husband and his family members in the night of 8th December 2016 under the pretext of non fulfilment of a demand of cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- and also of a demand of providing a luxury Car, she contends that she was thrown out from her matrimonial home and after taking assistance from her cousin brother on 12th December 2016, she has taken a flight from Bangalore to Delhi and from Delhi, she has reached Ramnagar by Train and ever since then, she is continuously residing with her parents.