VIMLA Vs. STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revisionist Smt. Vimla Devi has preferred this criminal revision against the judgement and order dated 20.7.2007, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Case No.431 of 2005 (Smt. Vimla Devi vs. Om Prakash) under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Fareedpur, District Bareilly whereby learned Judge awarded maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 500/- each to the minor sons Monoj and Gopal but the claim of the revisionist-applicant Vimla Devi moved under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, was rejected.

(2.) The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of this revision are that an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by Smt. Vimla Devi on behalf of herself and her minor sons Manoj and Gopal claiming maintenance on the ground that the marriage of applicant-revisionist Smt. Vimla Devi was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 Om Prakash 16 years ago according to Hindu rites and rituals. From the wedlock, two sons Manoj and Gopal and one daughter were born in which the daughter was residing with her husband Om Prakash. Her husband is doing work of tailoring at large scale in Delhi. He raised a demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- so as to he would open shop in the city Bareilly. On non-fulfillment of the demand, she was tortured to the extent that he did not provide food for many dates to her regularly. After the death of her father, the husband and her in-laws started to harass more and used to beat by kick and feast and after snatching jewellery she was ousted from the house of her husband and extended threat that he will not allow to live her unless she brought Rs. 1,00,000/- from her Mika. Applicant-revisionist is residing in her Mika and opposite party refused to maintain her and neither take care of her nor any single penny has been given for maintenance. She is unable to maintain herself as she has no means of income whereas opposite party earned Rs. 25,000/- per month from tailoring. The opposite party in his written objection denied the version given in the application under section 125 Cr.P.C levelled allegation that she insists to live in her Mika. He neither demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- nor beaten her and she extended threat to implicate him in dowry case. He has gone to his Sasural to fetch her but in persuasion of mother and brother she did not come with him. He has no means of income. He is doing agriculture work with his father.

(3.) After hearing the parties learned Principal Family Judge and evaluating the evidence adduced rejected the claim of applicant-revisionist but granted maintenance to the minor sons Manoj and Gopal to the tune of Rs. 500/- each.