AMIT PANDEY Vs. MANISHA PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner/non-applicant has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 16.5.2019, passed in M.J.C.No.186/2016, by I Addl. Principal Judge Family Court, Jabalpur, whereby learned Principal Judge, Family Court, has allowed the petition presented by respondent/ applicant under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner/ non-applicant to pay Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance.

(2.) The respondent/wife filed an application before Family Court, Jabalpur, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted by the respondent/wife that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner/non-applicant on 24.2.2007. At the time of marriage, petitioner/non-applicant and his parents demanded dowry. Father of respondent/wife incurred amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs) in the marriage. Thereafter, petitioner/non-applicant and his family members demanded dowry on account of non-fulfillment of dowry. On account of non-fulfillment of dowry, they tortured, humiliated and taunted her. Petitioner/non-applicant used to tell her to go to her parental house. Petitioner/non-applicant also used to tell her that one Sushila Soni, working as maid servant in the family is whole-sole for him. Petitioner/non-applicant and her maid servant tried to oust the respondent/wife. Thereafter, they thrown her out from her matrimonial home on 6.3.2010. On 1.12.2013, her father went to the house of petitioner/non-applicant and Petitioner/non- applicant told him that he wants divorce from her. So, petitioner/ non-applicant refused to keep him. On 16.5.2015, when her father- in-law became ill, then respondent/wife went to matrimonial home, but petitioner/non-applicant and his maid servant again thrown her out from matrimonial house on 12.6.2015. Respondent/wife is living separately from the petitioner/non-applicant since 12.6.2015. Again in December 2015, respondent/wife went to the matrimonial home to see her father-in-law, but petitioner/non-applicant refused to keep her and ousted her from the matrimonial house. Due to this, respondent/wife is living separately. She has no source of income. Petitioner/non-applicant neglected to maintain her. Petitioner/ non- applicant owns 35 acres of agricultural land and he earns Rs.15 lacs per annum from the agricultural land. Apart from that, he owns a tractor and one house. He is also an Advocate, so he earns more money from this profession and property. So, respondent is entitled to Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance.

(3.) The petitioner/non-applicant filed reply before the trial Court. It is submitted by him that he and her family did not demand any dowry from the respondent/wife and her parents. He and his family members did not torture and humiliate her due to non-fulfillment of dowry. Actually, at that time, his mother was a patient of cancer and his father was a patient of paralysis. Respondent/wife did not care them. She did not pay attention to them. She was not interested to do domestic work. She used to tell him that she is an Advocate. She wants to work as an Advocate at Jabalpur. So, respondent/wife was not interested to live with the petitioner/non-applicant at Damoh. She is habitual to live luxurious life at Jabalpur, so she is not interested to live with the petitioner/non-applicant at Damoh. Respondent/wife has sufficient means of income. She is an Advocate and she is practising Lawyer, so she is earning sufficient amount from this profession. She is living separately without any reasonable cause. Petitioner/non-applicant has 5 to 6 acres of agricultural land. Petitioner/non-applicant had taken loan by mortgaging his agricultural land from medical treatment of his father, who was under medical treatment, therefore, petitioner/non- applicant has no sufficient means of income. He is ready to keep the respondent/wife with him, therefore, respondent/wife is not entitled to get any maintenance from the petitioner/non-applicant.