KALPANA OJHA Vs. RAM LALA OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision has been preferred by Smt. Kalpana Ojha against the judgment and order dated 26.7.2009, passed by Sri Taj Bahadur Singh, Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Allahabad whereby the application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure moved by the revisionist was rejected by the Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in Case No. 203 of 2004, Kalpana Ojha v. Rama Lala Ojha and the maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 800 per month was granted to the minor daughter Mukta from the date of application.

(2.) From the perusal of the record it reveals that the revisionist was legally wedded wife of the opposite party Ram Lala Ojha. Their marital ceremony was performed on 21.2.2000, in accordance with Hindu customs and rites. There was no bickering between the husband and wife at the time of marriage. Sufficient dowry was given to the opposite party by the parents of the revisionist. The revisionist was also discharging her marital obligations without any rift. The in-laws, husband and other family members were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of the marriage. They were exerting undue pressure upon the revisionist to fetch more dowry so that the opposite party (husband) may open coaching institute. Inability was shown on the part of parents of the revisionist, the revisionist was humiliated and tortured. She had to face the brunt of the husband and in-laws. In the meantime a girl baby was borne out of their union but the in-laws and the husband did not abandon the habit of persecuting her. A gram panchayat was held at the instance of the father of the revisionist to bring an end to their marital bickering but the in-laws and the husband did not concede to the suggestions of the gram panchayat and revisionist went on bearing the brunt of the in-laws and the husband. She was brutally beaten on the issue of dowry as her parents could not fulfil their more demand of dowry. Out of chagrin, the revisionist left the marital house and decided to live with her parents. She filed application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance allowance for self as well as her minor daughter. On the other hand husband filed a suit for divorce in which written statement was filed on behalf of the wife. She contested the suit and filed application narrating the entire episode of the dowry torture and misbehaviour and also their ill-will to usurp the entire dowry given at the time of marriage. It was averred by her that she was totally dependent upon her parents who were providing amenities to the best of their capabilities for the maintenance of revisionist and her minor daughter from 2003. Her father had retired from service. He did not have sufficient means to contest the suit filed by the husband. Her parents were hardly arranging both end meals. She was living with her parents and was solely dependant upon them. Since the father of the revisionist had retired from service and was an aged one therefore, she was facing worst days of life as she did not have any source for survival. The husband owns a house and had earning to the tune of Rs. 20,000 from coaching institute. The opposite party (husband) had also agricultural land from which he earns about Rs. 5 lacs per year. The opposite party is absolutely responsible to maintain the revisionist as well as her minor daughter. The revisionist claims Rs. 8,000 for herself and Rs. 6,000 for her minor daughter. The opposite party No. 2 filed written statement/objection with regard to factum of marriage denying the demand of dowry. It was also stressed that no such inflated amount was spent at the time of solemnisation of marriage. The revisionist was never harassed or abused for fetching less dowry. The revisionist herself is a mentally retarded lady and had on one occasion assaulted to the opposite party with knife as a result of which he sustained injuries. This incident was duly informed to the father of the revisionist. The revisionist had taken away all the ornaments worth Rs. 50,000 in respect of which he had informed to the police authorities. The allegations made in the application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure are absolutely bogus, false and vague. The revisionist herself had created the ugly situation to live separately. The opposite party is only an educated person but had no source of income as mentioned in the application. The application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure having been filed on incorrect facts and grounds may be rejected out right.

(3.) In support of the contention claiming maintenance, statement of the revisionist was recorded as P.W. 1. No documentary evidence was filed by her. The husband in support of his contention had examined himself as D.W. 1. No other documentary evidence was filed by him. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the court below accepted the version of the revisionist and had come to the conclusion that the revisionist herself had left the house of her husband on the ground of not providing good quality of food at the matrimonial house. She is living in her parental house. No valid cause was shown by the revisionist to live separately from her husband. In such circumstances, the revisionist is not entitled to get any maintenance allowance. After analysing the factum of birth of girl baby out of their union, the court below conceded their marital knot. Since the liability to maintain the baby is devolved upon the parents and the husband in his statement accepted that he was a B.T.C. teacher hence it cannot be said that he is not employed and he is responsible to maintain her minor daughter.