PAWAN KUMAR RAMLAL SAHU Vs. MANJU SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, petitioner Pawan Kumar has challenged the order dated 21/11/2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Rajgarh in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.500/2012 awarding maintenance to the respondent wife and daughter.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that the petitioner husband was married to the respondent wife in the year 2004, according to the Hindu rites and out of the said wedlock one daughter Payal was born. Thereafter the husband and his family members started demanding household articles viz. Motorcycle, colour T.V.and fridge and the petitioner husband started treating her with cruelty. The respondent wife patiently tried to forebear with the situation. However, she was physically and mentally harassed by her husband respondent and thereafter she was ousted from the matrimonial home and she reached at her parental home. Thereafter she reported the matter at Kota Mahila police station. The respondent husband reconciled the matter and assured that he will never behave with cruelty towards the respondent wife and she again started living with the husband. However, the behaviour of the petitioner did not change, he was again treating her with cruelty. She tried to keep patience, since her father died during the time and the brothers were not able to look after her. The respondent husband started assaulting her again, on petty matters because she did not cook vegetables properly etc. Thereafter the petitioner husband has ousted the wife with her daughter and they came to Rajgarh and started residing with her brother. The family members tried to pacify the matter. However, the husband refused and even threatened the family members of the wife. The trial Court, on considering the application as well as the defence of the husband, awarded Rs.1,500/ - to the wife and Rs.1,000/ - to the daughter. Being aggrieved, the petitioner husband has filed this petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has vehemently urged the fact that the husband petitioner was not liable to pay the maintenance; primarily because the wife refused to live with the petitioner without any valid and cogent reason. The behaviour of the respondent wife was not good with the family members of the petitioner and she also used to quarrel with them on petty matters. Counsel further submitted that the respondent wife wants to live separately from the family members of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner started residing with the respondent wife in a rental house, but the behaviour of the respondent was not changed. Counsel further submitted that learned Trial Court had erred in granting/awarding the maintenance. Hence, Counsel prayed for setting aside the order.