R. VIVEK PRABHU Vs. SINDHJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur in MC.No.10 of 2017 on 15.11.2017.

(2.) The respondents in this Revision Petition filed MC.No.10 of 2017 as petitioners against the petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming the maintenance of Rs.12,500/- per month to each respondents, Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges and Rs.50,000/- per year towards the educational fees for the second respondent. The marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnised on 08.09.2014. Due to wedlock, the second respondent was born. The first respondent's parents presented her with 28 sovereigns of gold jewels and met the entire marriage expenses. The first respondent was working as Assistant Professor in DMI College of Engineering, Poonamallee and she was going to college from the residence at Plot no.20, Sathiya Priya Nagar, 2 nd cross street, Revathipuram, Urappakam. Since she had to travel a long distance to her working place, she encountered health problems. Therefore, she suggested to the petitioner to find a common place between her place of work and the petitioner's place of work. This suggestion was not accepted by the petitioner. Ultimately, the first respondent resigned a job. The first respondent handed over all her earnings to the petitioner while she was in service. However, the petitioner and his family members continue to demand the dowry and caused mental tension in different ways. The first respondent was not allowed to see her parents and she was not provided with any medical treatment when she fell ill. Even during the pregnancy, the first respondent was neglected and was not provided proper maintenance and medical care and was subjected to continuous mental torture. After the birth of the second respondent, the petitioner and his parents neglected her for giving birth to a female child. Even after nine months, the petitioner and his family members did not come forward to invite the respondents to the matrimonial home. When the matter was represented to Iyyancherry Parish Priest Paulraj, the petitioner and his family members imposed a condition to the first respondent that her parents should not come to visit her. The petitioner took the respondents to his brother's house at Flat No.9, Block No.1B, Begonia, Chennai. The first respondent was subjected to physical, abuse, verbal and economic abuse. On 17.04.2016, the petitioner broke the first respondent's cell phone and curtailed all sorts of communications to the outside world. On 18.12.2016, the respondent was chased out from the house. The petitioner is working as an Engineer in Satyam Venture Engineering Service Private Limited in Chennai, earning Rs.80,000/- per month. He deserted the respondents without providing anything to them. Therefore, this maintaineance petition.

(3.) Xxx xxx xxx