SANJEEV PATHAK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.09.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 43 of 2009, under section 125 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the opposite party No. 2 filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi stating that she was married to the revisionist on 04.12.2007. The revisionist and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry and they demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- (rupees five lacs ) as additional dowry. When the opposite party No. 2 was pregnant, her mother-in-law gave her some medicines to abort her child due to which she fell sick. After that the opposite party No. 2 started living with her husband in Bombay where she was medically examined and it revealed that she had one month's dead foetus in her womb. Again when the opposite party No. 2 fell sick on 01.09.2008 her mother came to her home at Bombay. Later on the parents of the revisionist also came to Bombay. The revisionist and his father turned out the opposite party No. 2 from their house. The opposite party No. 2 is dependent on her mother. The revisionist is Software Engineer at Delhi. He earns Rs. 60,000/- per month. Hence, the opposite party No. 2 has filed application under section 125 Cr.P.C.

(3.) The revisionist objected to the application and filed his written objection, in which he has stated that he has never demanded dowry, the opposite party No.2 was never ill-treated by the revisionist and his family members. He has further stated that the opposite party No. 2 always misbehaved at the house of the revisionist. She used to use filthy language against the revisionist and his parents and also used to assault and abuse them. He has further stated that opposite party No. 2 stated that she was married against her wishes and she does not want to live with the revisionist. The opposite party No. 2 went to her parents house on 28.9.2006 on her sweet will along with her belonging and she is living with her parents. Ultimately when the opposite party No. 2 was not ready to live with the revisionist, the revisionist filed a suit for divorce. The revisionist had to leave his job. Presently he is unemployed, whereas opposite party No. 2 is doing legal practice since 2003 and she earns Rs. 15,000/- per month.