LAWS(MPH)-2010-4-36

CHANDA Vs. SANJAY CHOUHAN

Decided On April 30, 2010
CHANDA Appellant
V/S
SANJAY CHOUHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being Aggrieved by the order dated 4-12-2008 passed by II Additional Family Court, Indore in Criminal Case No. 785/2008 whereby the petition filed by the petitioners for grant of maintenance was dismissed, the present petition has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that petitioners filed a petition for grant of maintenance on 4-8-2008 under Section 125 of Cr.PC wherein it was alleged that petitioner No. 1 is the wife of respondent and the marriage of petitioner No. 1 was solemnized with respondent on 13-5-2006. It was alleged that at the time of marriage certain articles were given as gift by the parents of petitioner No. 1 as per their status. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 kept well by the respondent for a period of 4 months approximately and thereafter petitioner No. 1 was subjected to cruelty by her maternal aunt-in-law etc. and on account of demand of dowry she was abused. It was alleged that upon refusal by petitioner No. 1 she was threatened for divorce and also for dire consequences. Further case of the petitioner No. 1 was that on 13-1-2007 respondent dropped the petitioner No. 1 at her parents house on the eve of Sankranti and thereafter respondent never turned-up to take back. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 was blessed with a daughter who is petitioner No. 2 herein on 20-11-2007. It was alleged that for their needs petitioners are having no means while respondent is a man of means and is earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. It was prayed that the petition filed by the petitioners be allowed and the maintenance be awarded @ Rs. 5,000/- per month.

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondent by filing the reply wherein all the allegations made in the petition were denied. It was denied that petitioner No. 1 was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. On the contrary it was alleged that character of petitioner No. 1 is doubtful as petitioner No. 1 was in contact with one Santosh who was not the relative of petitioner No. 1. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 was receiving the phone calls from Santosh at the residence of Latif Bhai. It was alleged that upon asking her not to receive the phone calls of Santosh at the residence of Latif Bhai, petitioner No. 1 was abusing and threatened for committing suicide. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 left the matrimonial house on 13-1-2007 and thereafter petitioner No. 1 never came in contact with respondent. It was alleged that on 3-2-2007 parties entered into an agreement whereby it was decided that petitioner No. 1 and respondent shall live separately and the agreement was executed in the presence of parents of petitioner 1. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 is not a lady of good character. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 is living an adulterated life. It was alleged that since the petitioner No. 1 delivered a daughter on 28-11-2007 while as per agreement dated 3-2-2007 petitioner No. 1 is not living with the respondent, this itself shows that the petitioner No. 2 is not the legitimate child of petitioner No. 1 from the respondent. It was alleged that in the facts and circumstances of the case respondent is not liable for payment of maintenance. It was prayed that the petition filed by the petitioners be dismissed. After holding summary inquiry learned Trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners against which the present petition has been filed.