JAGAT NARAIN Vs. SESSIONS JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is husband of the opposite party No. 3, has come up with a prayer to quash the order dated 1.4.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mainpuri in Case No. 54 of 1994 (which is its subsequent number after remand and not the original one) granting maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (here in after referred to as the Code) a sum of Rs. 400/- per month from 16.8.1988, the day on which the wife-respondent No. 3 filed her application under Section 125 of the Code (as contained in Annexure-3),and the revisional order dated 13.7.94 passed by the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri dismissing his Criminal Revision No. 89 of 1994 preferred by the petitioner (as contained in Annexure-4).

(2.) The relevant facts are in a narrow compass. On 16.6.1988 respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri praying to grant her a sum ofRs. 500/- towards maintenance alleging to the following effect. She was married as per the Hindu rites with the petitioner about 3 years ago; her father gave dowry, as per his capacity, but the petitioner, her father-in-law, her Devar and feth became dissatisfied with the dowry and started demanding Television and Motor Cycle in dowry by making different types of comments; in this regard her brother was also called for who and her father could not fulfil me aforementioned demands; thereafter her in-laws started torturing her; she felt deep troubles and informed her brother, who came and tried to make them understand, but failed; after this she was driven out of her home only with the clothes which she was wearing; now she is residing with her father who is old and his brother, who has too got his family and as such they cannot support her; her husband is having a shop of High Speed Diesel, Mobile Oil, Kerosene Oil and Petrol, bedsides his own house and shops and hence she should be given a maintenance of Rs. 500/- so that she could meet her expenses. The petitioner filed a rejoinder denying the allegations except that of marriage, He asserted the this wife is quarrel-some and always quarrels with his parents and sister; she was asked not to quarrel on which she agreed to reside yet she insisted that he should live separately from his parents. Which was not agreed upon by him, and hence she went to her parents; he went to her in-laws to bring her back but his father-in-law and brother-in-law told him that they will not send her till he separates from his family.

(3.) The prayer of respondent No.3 was allowed against which the petitioner went up in revision. His revision was allowed and the case was remitted back for affording an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence.