VEENA VERMA Vs. IIIRD ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE ETAWAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant was married with opposite party No. 2 on 13-2: 1988 and started living with opposite party No. 2 at his house in Shikohabad, District Firozabad. The applicant moved an ap plication on 2-9- 1993 under Section 125, Cr. P. C. , for maintenance against opposite party No. 2 alleging that opposite party No. 2 and his family members were tortur ing her in connection with demand of dowry and used to assault her. On 13-3-1996 she was severely beaten, which resulted in the miscarriage. Thereafter, on 18-8-1993 she was turned out of his house by opposite party No. 2. 2, Opposite party No. 2 contested the petition and alleged that he is ready to Keep the applicant. That no dowry was ever demanded nor the applicant was over tor tured or assaulted. Thai the applicant was demanding that opposite party No. 2 to live separately from his parents, for which the opposite party No. 2 was not ready. That the applicant gave birth to a female child, who died some time after the birth and thereafter, the parents of the applicant taken her from the house of opposite party No. 2 on 21-8- 1993. That thereafter, (he applicant did not come to the house of opposite party No. 2 in spite of best efforts by him. That therefore, the application Under Section 125, Cr. P. C. is not main tainable. 3. The learned Magistrate considered the evidence in detail and awarded main tenance of Rs. 5007- per month to the applicant from the date of application i. e. 4-9-1993 by an order dated 19-3-1996. Ag grieved by that order, opposite party No. 2 preferred Criminal Revision No. 105 of 1996, which was allowed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah on 30-4- 1997 and the application of the applicant for maintenance has been rejected. The appellant, therefore, filed the present criminal revision. 4. 1 have heard Sri Nagendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri R. C. Srivastava, learned Counsel for op posite party No. 2 and have perused the entire evidence. 5. The perusal of the judgment of the first revisional Court shows that his ap proach in this matter is not proper and he allowed the revision on flimsy grounds. He has concluded that the appellant herself is not ready to live with opposite party No. 2, though he is ready to keep the applicant, on the basis of the statement of the ap plicant that she is not ready to live with opposite party No. 2 unless the opposite party lives separately from his parents. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, overlooked the other part of the statement, in which she hastened to add that her mother-in-law will murder her (eat her unripe ). From the perusal of the entire statement, it appears that the ap plicant is not ready to live with opposite party No. 2, while he is living with his parents because of the fear of her lineal the hands of her mother-in-law. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of her statement, that she has put a condition of separate residence of opposite party No. 2 is not correct. If the applicant apprehends torture and attempt on her life by the mother of opposite party No. 2, how she could agree to live with opposite party No. 2, while he is living with his mother. Therefore, the inference has not rightly been drawn by the learned Ad ditional Sessions Judge, Etawah. 6. It may be mentioned that after all a lady marriages with a man to live with him. There should be some cogent reason for a lady to refuse to live with her husband. How ever, the opposite party No. 2 has not shown any cogent reason for the refusal of the applicant to live with him. On the other hand, the appellant alleged that the be haviour of the parents of opposite party No. 2 with the applicant was not cordial and she apprehends danger to her life at the hands of the mother of opposite party. It appears that she is not ready to live with the mother of opposite party No. 2 for this reason. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also observed that no FIR was lodged regarding demand of the dowry and cruelty by the applicant, though she and her family members are literate holding good position. This shows that there was no demand of dowry or cruelty. The in ference drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not proper. It is a matter of experience that the wife is always slow in lodging the FIR against her husband and in-laws as the stage for amicable settlement between the parties becomes remote as soon as on FIR, lodged. The party, who wants to maintain matrimonial relations, will never go to the police station to lodge the FIR against the other party till it has hope that the point of no return has not reached. In matrimonial matters the hus bands and wives tolerate to the maximum extent to maintain matrimonial tie in place of approaching the police to interfere in their disputes. There is no cogent explana tion by the opposite party as to why the applicant is not ready to live with him. Therefore, the circumstances speak that the applicant is not feeling comfortable at the hands of the mother of opposite party No. 2 and therefore, she is not ready to live with opposite party No. 2. If it is so, she is entitled to separate residence and main tenance. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has, therefore, erred in allowing the revision. 8. Accordingly, (he present revision is allowed and the judgment of III Additional Sessions Judge, Elawah dated 30-4-1997 passed in Criminal Revision No. 105 of 1996 is quashed and the order of the two Magistrate dated 19-3-1996 is restored. Revision allowed. .