RAHIL KHAN Vs. SMT. LALLI BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this criminal revision is to judgment and order dated 12.06.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Pratapgarh in criminal case No.853/00 whereby the application under Sec. 125 Crimial P.C. was allowed awarding maintenance of Rs.1,500.00 to the respondent.

(2.) It is argued on behalf of learned counsel for the revisionist that the respondent could not prove that she was exiled from her matrimonial house. She was living separately from the revisionist without any valid reason. She has not lodged any FIR against revisionist and admitted that she was inclined to take divorce which shows that she is living with her parents on her own accord and she is not entitled to maintenance. The revisionist has not conducted any other marriage which shows that he inclined to live in the company of the respondent. The revisionist had attempted to bring the respondent to his house 3-4 times but she refused to live in his company. The decree of restitution of conjugal rights has been passed by the appellate Court in favour of the revisionist. According to the revisionist, the respondent left her company without any justification. The suit No.70 of 1992 for restitution of conjugal rights Mohd. Rahil Khan Vs. Lalli Bano Alias Jatuna was filed by him in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sadar, Pratapgarh which was dismissed by the Civil Judge by order dated 30.05.1994 but the appeal against it was allowed vide order dated 21.01.1996. The respondent has defied the order of the Court and despite the decree of restitution of conjugal rights she has refused to live with him, thus she was not entitled for any maintenance. It was wrongly held by the Court below that the income of the revisionist was Rs.5,000-6,000 per month. There was no evidence on record to prove it.

(3.) It is further submitted that the father of the respondent intended divorce between the two parties and to marry the respondent with the son of his relation residing in Pakistan. It is also submitted that he had not demanded any dowry at the time of marriage or thereafter nor was any dowry given. Some gifts were no doubt given to him as well as his wife which were in custody of his wife. He did not torture her nor did he ever misbehave with her for the reasons that she had brought meager dowry or that she did not give birth to a child or for any other reason. However, her father was greedy and was adamant to get her divorced and to marry with one of his relation living in foreign country. The respondent was taken to her maternal home by her father under the pretext of the illness of the sister of the respondent but thereafter the father of the respondent did not permit her to come back to matrimonial home despite several efforts made by him. The reliance has been placed on the ruling of Dev Narayan Halder Vs. Anushree Halder 2003 (47) ACC 897 and it is argued that his wife left him without any justification, thus she was not entitled to any maintenance under Sec. 125 Crimial P.C. The impugned order was liable to be set aside.