SHANO Vs. ARSHAD QURESHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed by the wife Smt. Shanno W/o. Arshad Qureshi being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.09 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.33/08 by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain dismissing the application of the petitioner wife filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for elucidation are that the petitioner was married to the non-applicant husband Arshad Qureshi according to Muslim rites on 23.04.06 at Ujjain and within a period of six months, the matrimonial discord became evident and there was a2 separation on 23.12.06 and the wife started residing with her parents and filed application for grant of maintenance on 22.11.07. The applicant refused to go back to the husband. However during the pendency of the proceedings the parties arrived at compromise in March 2008 and the wife returned to her matrimonial home. However, very shortly the applicant wife attempted to commit suicide by burning and therefore returned home to her parents. Thereafter, the applicant served notice to the respondent non-applicant husband, however, the notice failed to take into account that Rs.30,000/- had already given to the wife on the compromise.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent/husband, on the other hand, has opposed the submissions and stated that the husband was willing to stay with the wife and hence had even worked out the compromise in the year 2008. Whereas the wife was making false allegations against him and his family members by alleging that they had poured kerosene over the applicant and caused burn injuries, which had not true. The witnesses had examined Smt. Shabra Khatun (P.W.2) and Smt. Parvin (P.W.3) had completely exonerated the present husband respondent, it was also noted that on slightest pretext the applicant threatened that she would commit suicide. Besides the Court had also taken into consideration that Rs.30,000/- had already been paid to the wife, her demand according to the compromise and4 no further ground remained for her to refuse to return to the matrimonial home. Under these circumstances, Counsel stated that the wife Shanno (P.W.1) had not resided more than 15 days in her matrimonial home and was now turning around in making such serious allegations against the husband and making a demand of maintenance which was not at all justified under the circumstances.