BANSIDHAR Vs. SEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act against the judgment and order dated 17-8-1991 of the Judge, Family Court, Bareilly, whereby the petition moved by respondent Smt. Seema under Section 125, Cr. P. C. was allowed and the appellant Bansidhar was directed to pay Rs. 400.00 per month as maintenance to the respondent from 25-4-1990.

(2.) The respondent Smt. Seema filed a petition under Section 125, Cr. P.C. on 25-4-1990 against the appellant Bansidhar claiming Rs. 500.00 per month as maintenance. The petition was filed before the Lower Criminal Court lst, Bareilly. The case of the respondent, in brief, was that she was married to the appellant on 20-5-1989 and thereafter she went to the house of her husband and resided with him at Agra and also performed marital obligations. The parents and other relations of the appellant started ill-treating her immediately after marriage and put pressure upon her to bring more dowry from her parents. On 26-9-1989 the appellant's mother and brother tried to pour kerosene on her and set her on fire but she was anyhow saved and a first information report of the incident was lodged at P. S. Lohamandi, Agra, by her uncle Kaushal Kumar on the basis of which a case was registered as Case Crime No. 339 of 1984 under Section 498-A, I.P.C. The respondent was turned out of the house on 26-9-1989 after giving her beating and the articles given to her as presentation in the marriage, which was her stridhan, was retained by the appellant's parents and brother. They further told the respondent that in case she wanted to live with her husband, she should bring Rs. 50,000.00 from her parents. The case of the respondent further was that her life was not safe in case she lived with the appellant and she might even be murdered. The appellant was carrying on shoe business at Agra and had an income of Rs. 5000.00 per month. The respondent was unable to maintain herself and accordingly she prayed that Rs. 500.00 per month may be awarded to her as maintenance.

(3.) The appellant Bansidhar filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the petition filed by the respondent. His case, in brief, was that no dowry was ever demanded from the respondent nor she was ill-treated or assaulted. A false FIR had been lodged against him by the respondent's uncle as he was inimical to him. The allegation in the FIR that an attempt was made to set the respondent on fire after pouring kerosene on her was absolutely false. His case further was that he was merely working as a packer in a shoe shop and was getting only Rs. 400 per month. The respondent was an educated lady and she was earning Rs. 300.00 per month from tuitions before her marriage. The respondent had refused to live with the appellant and had refused to perform her marital obligations and therefore, she was not entitled to any maintenance. It was also pleaded that after the receipt of the notice from the respondent the appellant had sent her a reply to come and live with him but she has refused to do so and, therefore, she was not legally entitled to get any maintenance from the appellant.