VIRENDRA KACHWAHA Vs. GEETA KACHWAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 30.4.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewa in M.J.C. No.84/2010, whereby a maintenance of Rs.1,500/- was granted to the respondent under section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The respondent has preferred an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court that her marriage took place with the applicant on 20.5.2005 but, she was not kept with comfort in the house of the applicant. She was being harassed for demand of dowry. She was assaulted by the applicant for several times. The applicant threw her from the staircase and therefore, she sustained a fracture in her backbone. She was not taken to the hospital even. Her father took her to the hospital of Dr.Johri, where she was admitted and remained for 8 days. Thereafter, she was again taken to the house of the applicant but, the applicant continued to harass the respondent for demand of dowry. In August, 2008, she was sent to her parents' house with a demand of Rs.1 Lac. Thereafter, the applicant moved a search warrant with help of SDM, Katni and the respondent appeared before that Court and informed about the situation. The respondent had submitted that she was unable to maintain herself, whereas the applicant was working with his father in his business and he was earning more than 15,000/- per month and therefore, a maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month was demanded.

(3.) The applicant in his reply had denied the averments made in the application. On the contrary, it was submitted that the applicant tried to call the respondent, so that she could live with the applicant but, the respondent did not visit the house of the applicant. A search warrant was also initiated with help of SDM, Katni then, the respondent informed the SDM concerned that she wanted to reside with her parents. A false case of offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC is also registered, due to instigation of the respondent. The applicant has submitted that he and his family members are simply selling the vegetables on footpath and therefore, he has no such income, so that a huge maintenance can be granted to the respondent. On 10.4.2009, one social panchayat was also called but, the respondent did not participate in the panchayat. Under such circumstances, there is no reasonable ground with the respondent, so that she could live separately and therefore, she was not entitled for the maintenance.