AMITA Vs. VIPIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition under section 397 of the CrPC, petitioner Smt. Amita Ajmera has challenged the order dated 9.9.2010 passed by 1st Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in Miscellaneous Case No.639/2009.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that petitioner Amita had married respondent Vipin Ajmera on 31.1.1999 according to the Hindu Rites and two children were bom out of the said wedlock. However, the respondent husband and his family members used to trouble the petitioner and made demand of dowry but she tolerated the same. When father of the petitioner was died, they started troubling her and threw her from the matrimonial home and there was compromise in the year 2002, the respondent husband brought the petitioner wife back, the petitioner cajoled her that his family should not suffer since she had two sons and sent her back but respondent and his family members did not stop troubling her for dowry and finally she left the matrimonial home and then filed an application for maintenance claiming that the husband was carrying the business in the name of M/s. Gourav Trading Company and earns Rs.20,000/ - per month. He also owned the residential house and separate business was conducted by father of the respondent husband. Whereas on 20.12.2008 since the husband had assaulted and beaten the wife and throw her out of the matrimonial home, she claimed Rs.7,000/ - for herself and Rs.3,000/ - maintenance for her son Aadish, who is 3 years old whom she took with herself, whereas elder son Akshat is residing with the respondent husband. The respondent husband replied, denying the allegations and submitted that he has not having any business and wife has left the husband on her own will and she wanted to live in the city of Indore not in Jaora, whereas elder son Akshat is living with his father/respondent and going to school, whereas the respondent was living at rented house, the house is belonging to one Ramesh Motwani, and the respondent was looking after the family himself and residing at village Joara and his wife living at Indore and he denied the maintenance. The petitioner wife did not care about the sons and husband, who lived at Joara and she herself is capable of earning because she is running a beauty parlor in Indore arid earning Rs.8,000/ - to Rs. 10,000/ - per month. The parents had also deserted the husband and was made to run from pillor to post for a job and also look after her son. She was not entitled to maintenance according to the written statement.

(3.) THE trial Court on considering the evidence however awarded a sum of Rs. 1,500/ - to the wife and Rs. 1,000/ - to child Aadish, hence the present revision petition by the wife stating that the amount was meager under the circumstances and in these days inflation, she was unable to look after herself and her child.