JITENDRA KUMAR SAKET Vs. SAROJ KUMARI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been instituted on an application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging order dated 7.2.2009 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baidhan, district Sidhi, in Criminal Revision No. 54/2009, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge had affirmed the order dated 7.2.2009 passed by J.M.F.C. Baidhan in M.J.C. No. 189/2006 awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/ - per month to respondent No. 1, wife Saroj and at the rate of Rs. 400/ - per month to respondent No. 2, daughter Sonu.

(2.) THE case of respondent No. 1 wife Saroj before the trial Court was that she married applicant Jitendra about 2 years prior to the date of filing of the application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 31.05.2006 by Hindu rites. For about one year, they lived amicably as husband and wife; however, thereafter the attitude of the applicant towards the respondent No. 1 changed and he started to demand dowry from her. The applicant used to inflict cruelty upon her. Consequently, respondent's father called a Panchayat of society elders; wherein, a written compromise was reached between the parties. After the compromise, the relations between the parties were normal and a daughter named Sonu, was born to Saroj in the wedlock. However, after the birth of the daughter the attitude of the applicant towards the respondent changed again. He started persecuting her and drove her out of her matrimonial home after beating her up. The respondent No. 1 is unable to maintain herself. The applicant, despite having sufficient means is refusing to maintain the respondents.

(3.) AFTER trial, on the basis of compromise deed Ex. P/1, the learned Magistrate held that the applicant was able to prove that she is legally wedded wife of the applicant and respondent No. 2 Sonu was born in the wedlock. It was further held that despite having sufficient means, the applicant is refusing to maintain the respondents. Therefore, maintenance, as aforesaid, was granted to the respondents.