SANJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. RASHMI AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this revision, the revisionist has questioned the legality of the order dated 2.5.2012 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (E.C. Act), Rampur whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge partly allowed and partly dismissed the appeal No.76 of 2011 (Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal vs. Rashmi Agarwal) arising out of judgment and order dated 7.10.2011 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No.1, Rampur in Case No.224 of 2008 (Smt. Rashmi Agarwal vs. Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal), under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(2.) I have heard Shri I.M. Khan, learned counsel for revisionist and learned counsel for opposite parties.

(3.) The brief facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the revisionist and respondent no.1 are husband and wife, who were married on 14.5.2003, according to Hindu rites. Gradually the relations between the two got strained and the wife had to leave her matrimonial home. The wife feeling neglected, filed two cases against her husband one under section 125 Cr.P.C. and the other under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. In the complaint case filed under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur, the wife alleged that her husband was neglecting her. He and his family members were harassing her on account of insufficient dowry. In June 2004, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home despite the fact that she was pregnant at that time. On 4.10.2004, she delivered a child and after delivery, she became very weak but neither her husband nor any of his relatives came to her parental house to see her or to make any arrangement for her treatment, medicines or nutrition. Her mother in law expired on 25.1.2005. Hearing the news of her death, she went to her matrimonial house, but she was treated badly. She was not welcomed there and on 14.6.2006, under compelling circumstances, she had to leave her matrimonial home once again. Since then she is living with her father. Her husband/revisionist instead of providing her maintenance forced her to sign a decree of divorce with mutual consent. He threatened her that if she would not sign the application for divorce with mutual consent, she would have to face serious consequences. It was alleged by the wife that despite being a rich person and also an Advocate having sufficient means to pay maintenance to her, he is not providing any maintenance.