BHARTI Vs. HIMANSU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision is filed under section 19(4) of Family Court Act read with sections 397,401 CrPC and is directed against the order passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Ujjain, District Ujjain in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.92/2012 dated 25.9.2013 whereby the learned Judge of the Family Court allowed the application under section 125 of CrPC and granted maintenance to the applicants.

(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for disposal of this revision are that the applicant No. 1 is wedded wife of respondent -Himanshu Tare. Applicant No.2 is bom out of the wedlock of applicant No.l and the respondent. After her marriage, applicant No.1 resided with the respondent at her matrimonial house at Indore, and thereafter, applicant No.1 purchased a house at Pune in Maharashtra. The couple shifted to Pune. According to the applicant No. 1, though she was very particular in fulfillment of her responsibility towards her matrimonial obligations and also towards her family, the respondent and his parents used to neglect her and ill -treat her. When the applicant No. 1 became pregnant, the respondent sent her to her parents home at the behest of his parents and when the applicant was at her parents home, he sold the house at Pune without obtaining permission from the applicant then he started living again with her parents and due to such neglectful behaviour of respondent and his parents, finally, the applicants were thrown out of her matrimonial house. The applicant filed an application under section 125 CrPC for grant of maintenance of Rs. 15,000/ -.

(3.) IN reply, the respondent's case was that the behaviour of the applicant No. 1 was not proper with the respondent and his parents, and therefore, he gave her a notice dated 9.4.2011 only with intention so that the applicant No. 1 should realise an improve her behaviour. However, she left his house after notice. This application is filed on false ground just to harass the respondent. He has filed an application for divorce in a Puna Court. He has to maintain his parents, and therefore, he is unable to maintain the respondent. The applicant No. 1 is M.A. in Fine Arts and she teaches 15 -20 students and earns Rs.5,000/ - to Rs.7,000/ - per month. Father of the applicant No.l was getting pension of Rs. 15,000/ - to Rs.20,000/ - and his brothers are also earning more than Rs.50,000/ - per month and applicant No. 1 does not require any maintenance from him.