JADISH SINGH Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Government Advocate.

(2.) The above criminal revision has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against the judgment and order dated 19.4.2001 passed by the Presiding Officer/Judge Family Court in Case No. 1370 of 1995, Smt. Anita v. Jagdish, which was preferred under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month. Smt. Anita filed this application alleging that after marriage the family members of her husband including father-in-law, mother-in-law as well as elder brother of her husband were demanding money and T.V. and other materials in lieu of dowry. Smt. Anita has also made allegations that she had been beaten and had been ousted on 21st February, 1995 from the house of her husband. Since then she is living with her parents' house. Smt. Anita has also alleged that her Jtusband is involved in jewellery-making business as such his monthly income is about Rs. 5,000/- per month, whereas, she has no means of her livelihood. The contentions of Smt. Anita the respondent No. 2 (in the present criminal revision) have been denied through the written reply of her husband. The husband of Smt. Anita (Mr. Jagdish Seth/applicant in the present criminal revision) has conceded that parties of both sides were poor and they were married under poverty as such there was no question of demanding dowry. He has further contended it was difficult for him to live with his wife in the City, therefore, he maintains his livelihood by doing work as daily wager by selling cosmetic items on door to door basis as 'hawker' and earned 30 to 40 rupees per day. It has been indicated on behalf of the applicant that his elder brother is involved in the business of jewellery as well as ready-made garments. The applicant in the present criminal revision has also contended that his wife was not willing to live with him and she had gone to the house of her father on her own Will and despite the efforts made by the Family Court for reconciliation their dispute could not be resolved. A case of demand of dowry filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 (Smt. Anita) is also pending. The applicant has also stated before the Family Court that his wife Smt. Anita had been repeatedly insisting that he should come and live with the family of her father. On the basis of statements and records available the learned Judge Family Court has awarded for maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month to be paid by Sri Jagdish Seth to his wife Anita from the date of presentation of the application i.e. from 20.11.1995. '

(3.) Against the above order the husband Sri Jagdish Seth has filed the above criminal revision. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also been allowed to file written argument.