VANITA SURESH KOLHE Vs. SURESH TILSIRAMJI KOLHE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision applicant Smt. Vanita is taking exception to the order passed by the learned Principal Judge, family Court in Petition No. E-573/2000 dated 5. 1. 2005 by which her claim for grant of maintenance under section 125 of Cr. P. C. was rejected. Brief facts leading to this revision under section 19 (4) of the Family court Act may be stated thus. Revision applicant No. 1 Vanita is the wife of non applicant Suresh. Suresh had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal right or inalternative petition for dissolution of marriage under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act bearing Petition No. A-285 of 2001 in the Family Court, Nagpur and the revision applicant had filed petition No. E-573/ 2000 in the Family Court, Nagpur for grant of maintenance under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code. As parties to both the proceedings were same and evidence was common, learned Principal Judge, Family court, Nagpur decided these two petitions together. Petition of the husband for divorce was allowed and marriage solemnized between the parties on 17. 8. 1997 was dissolved. Whereas the application filed by the wife for grant of maintenance was rejected. It may be mentioned that the maintenance was awarded to his minor daughter Neha.

(2.) Revision applicant seeks to challenge this order. On perusal of the judgment qf the learned trial Judge, it would be seen that it was the case of the revision applicant wife that after marriage the parties had lived together at many places. She claimed that she was not treated with love and affection. Her case is further that she was brought to her parents house for delivery at the advance stage of pregnancy and expenses of her delivery was borne by her parents. Husband was not happy with the birth of a daughter because he wanted a son. He had also abused her in the hospital, in the filthy language after her delivery. Alleging the ill-treatment at the instance of her husband and improper behaviour of the in-laws, she claimed maintenance, she had also approached Women Cell attached to sakkardara Police Station and she had tried to get the matter settled, however, husband and his family members were not allowing her to stay with him. Further claiming that she is unable to maintain herself and her husband who is respondent is working as buldozer Driver and who is earning Rs. 12000/- per month. She claimed maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) Husband had denied all the material allegations. After leading the evidence, parties made submissions before the Court and trial Court allowed the application of the husband regarding dissolution of marriage, whereas the application of the wife as regards grant of maintenance to her was rejected. Revision applicant takes exception to that order.