SHILA BAI Vs. ASHOK KUMAR PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants/the wife and son of the respondent, have directed this revision under section 397 read with 401 of the Cr.P.C in connection of the order dated 10.5.2012 passed by the I Add. Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in MJC No.12/12 whereby allowing their application of section 125 of the Cr.P.C in part, the respondent has been directed to pay Rs.900/- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.400/- per month to applicant No.2 as maintenance. As such they have come for further enhancement of such sum.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that applicant No.1 herein got married with respondent in accordance with the rites and rituals of Hindu community on dated 23.1.07 at Jabalpur. Out of such wedlock, they were bless with a son on dated 5.6.08, the applicant No.2 herein. As per further case of the applicants as stated in the application filed under section 125 of the Cr.P.C, that subsequent to aforesaid marriage near about two months, the respondent kept applicant No.1 in good and harmonious atmosphere in the matrimonial home but thereafter started mental and physical cruelty with her on account of demand of dowry and in continuation of the same, the respondent had left her at her parental home in her pregnancy period. It is also stated that such alleged cruelty was tolerated by the applicant No.1 under the expectation that on some day, such atmosphere of the matrimonial home shall be changed, but there was no change in the cruel activities of the respondent as well as his family members. Although, on some assurance, the applicant No.1 again went with the respondent to the matrimonial home, from where again on account of demand of Rs.50,000/- in the dowry, she was ousted by the respondent in March,2010. Such incident was reported by her to the Police Station Gosalpur on 2.3.2010. Thereafter the respondent again came and gave her an assurance in writing that he will not torture her in future, pursuant to it she had given note-sheet in writing to the authority stating that she does not want any proceedings against the respondent. Subsequent to it, the respondent filed a petition in the Court of Addl.District Judge, Sihora for judicial separation. Thereafter on coming to know about some cruel and fraudulent activities of the respondent against her, on which, she lodged a report at Police Station Gosalpur, on which, the offence of section 498-A of the IPC was registered. It is further stated that while residing the applicants at the parental home of applicant No.1, the respondent did not take any care of them. Even, the requisite sum for their livelihood was never given by him and accordingly, he neglected and refused to keep them with him without any sufficient cause. Applicant No.1 did not possess any source of income while the respondent is having 12 acres of agricultural land and besides this by working as mason, he is earning Rs.10-15 thousand per3 month and, in such premises, the prayer for awarding the maintenance of Rs.5000- per month to applicant No.1 and Rs.4000/- per month to applicant No.2 is made.

(3.) In reply of the respondent, by denying the material averments regarding neglect and refusal, in addition it is stated that the applicant No.1 wanted that respondent by residing with her parental family to the work for livelihood there only for which he was neither ready nor prepared and due to that reason some quarrel took place between them, on which, he along with his family members was subjected to threatening of registration of a criminal case of cruelty on the background of demand of dowry. It is further stated that the father of the applicant No.1, who is working as Peon in the High Court had also threatened to involve him in a false and fabricated case. Being aggrieved by such threatening, he also made a complaint to the Registrar. It is also stated that the case registered under section 498-A of the IPC was a concocted and fabricated case. It is also stated that applicant No.1 is working as laborer and also doing the work of tailoring, out of which, she is earning Rs.5000/- per month which is sufficient for livelihood of herself and applicant No.2. The liability is also denied on the ground that applicant No.1 along with her son is residing separately from him without any sufficient cause for which respondent is not responsible. In this connection he also stated that inspite receiving the notice from "Pariwaar Paramarsh Kendra" Jabalpur applicant No.1 did not turn there consequently such proceeding was disposed of. He had tried his level best to keep the applicants in his family but applicant No.1 and her parental family did not co-operated for the same. Lastly, it is stated that he4 is working as laborer and earning only Rs.1600-1800/- per month and, in such premises, he is not in a position to give any sum of the maintenance to the applicants and prayer for dismissal of the application was made.