LAWS(MPH)-2006-2-6

DALIBAI Vs. RAJENDRASINGH

Decided On February 02, 2006
DALIBAI Appellant
V/S
RAJENDRASINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred with a prayer to quash the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonkutch in Cr. R. No. 38/04 confirming the order passed by JMFC, Sonkutch in Cr. C. No. 17/02 on 13-2-2004 whereby application under Section 125 of the Cr. PC moved by the applicant was dismissed. Admittedly, marriage of applicant and non-applicant was solemnized on 15-5-1997 according to Hindu rituals and applicant started living with non- applicant in her matrimonial house. It is also not in dispute that at present applicant is residing with her father.

(2.) THE case of the applicant before learned JMFC was this that after some time from her marriage with the non-applicant, non-applicant and his family members started torturing her for demand of dowry. Parents of the applicant gave Rs. 5,000/- on two occasions to non-applicant but even then demand of dowry continued. Non-applicant started harassment and treated applicant with cruelty and then sent her to her parental house to bring some more money. Untimely non-applicant told applicant that she can only live in her matrimonial house if some more money by way of dowry is brought by her. She was given threat of causing her death by pouring kerosene and thereafter ablazing her. In such circumstances she went to her parental house. It was also stated in the application that the applicant is unable to maintain herself whereas non-applicant has got sufficient means of income to pay maintenance to the applicant,

(3.) NON-APPLICANT in his reply contended that applicant left matrimonial house on her own without informing anyone, a report of missing person was lodged by non-applicant. He has also said that applicant also instituted a false case under Section 498 (A), IPC against him and his family members by lodging a false report. After trial non-applicant and his family members were acquitted. It has also been averred that applicant is well educated, she runs a coaching class and is earning Rs. 3,000/- to 4,000/- per month by this business of coaching class. She is living in her parental house without any reasonable and proper cause so she is not entitled for maintenances living separately.