LEELA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by Smt. Leela and Manibhushan, under the guardianship of Smt. Leela, against the order dated 16. 9. 1991 passed in Criminal Revision No. 185/89.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this petition are that a petition under Section 125 Cr. P. C. was moved by the present petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior for grant of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2500/- per month. They alleged that the petitioner No. 1 was married to Dr. Brijbhushan according to Hindu rites on 8. 3. 1981. Out of the wedlock a son, applicant No. 2 Manibhushan was born on 31. 7. 1983. Since then he was living with petitioner No. 1. The opposite parties used to drink heavily. He was of immoral character and used to demand dowry. Thus, the petitioner was mentally and physically tortured. Dr. Vijay Bhushan, her brother had brought her in Diwali in 1982, as on the previous night, the opposite party had beaten her after taking drinks, when she was pregnant. After two months of the birth of the child, she went to Surya Prasad, her father at Gwalior. Since then the opposite party was neither taking her and the child nor maintaining them. Her father was feeling difficulty in maintaining her and her child. The opposite party is a Medical Practitioner under the Central Government and was earning Rs. 4000/- besides other allowance but he was not maintaining the petitioners. She also required money for the education of the child. The opposite party has also kept ornaments, clothes etc. of the petitioner.

(3.) THE petition was contested on various grounds. It was alleged by the respondent that he had filed a petition for divorce under Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi, which was decided on contest. It was pleaded and held therein that there had been no cohabitation between the parties. No appeal was filed against that order and the findings that there was no cohabitation had become final. The allegation that petitioner No. 2 was borne out of the wedlock is false and frivolous. Petitioner No. 1 was leading adulterous life and petitioner No. 2 was borne out of adultery. The other allegations made in the petition were also denied. The allegations that the petitioner No. 1 was beaten and demand of dowry was made and that there was marpit done by him in drunken condition have been specifically denied. It was further pleaded that the petitioner No. 1 was working as a teacher in the school of her father and was earning her livelihood. She was post-graduate and was well qualified. Non-applicant has alleged that after paying house-rent, G. P. F. , General Insurance etc, which comes to Rs. 3630/- during February, 1985, he got Rs. 1025/- only. He denied his liability to maintain the petitioner. He had one pair of gold bangle, a neckless, which he was ready to deliver to the petitioner. He had also utensils and other articles given at the time of marriage and is ready to give it to the petitioners.