VISHAL RATHORE Vs. SMT. RAKHI @ PRITI RATHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act by the petitioner Vishal Rathor being aggrieved the order dated 29/04/2015 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.85/2014 by the Principal Judge of the Family Court at Dhar awarding a sum of Rs.8,000/- to the respondent-wife.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Vishal was married to the respondent Rakhi according to the Hindu rites on 23/04/2004 and one son Soumya Rathor was born out of the said wedlock. However, after sometime there was marital discord and it was alleged by the wife that the husband used to beat her and hence she left her matrimonial home. However she was pregnant and on giving birth to a child namely Soumya, she was taken back but she was being physically as well as mentally tortured and on being pregnant again there was a forced abortion. They did not allow the child Soumya to study and in the month of April 2012 as well as on 15.07.2012 she was pushed out of the matrimonial home. The house was locked and the wife was thrown out. Thereafter she was living in her parental home and hence the wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court. She claimed that the husband had a kirana shop at Khachrod in the name of Shrikrishna Kirana Bhandar and there was two storeys of pakka house in Khachrod and near Railway colony and Kabadipura there was one house each. The father of the applicant is a moneylender and the husband was a partner in the firm and earned about Rs.40,000/- per month. The wife claimed maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. The trial Court, however, on considering the submissions of the petitioner husband in the present case that the wife was not behaving properly with the in-laws and had refused to come home and prayed that the application be dismissed. However, the Judicial Magistrate by order dated 29.08.2012 ordered maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month to the wife and in retaliation the wife had also filed a complaint through her brother for offence under Section 498-A IPC and Section 31 of the Domestic violence Act.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner in the present case has also alleged that there was lot of manipulation and false cases had been filed against the petitioner husband and he had to seek bail since the offences aforesaid were registered. Similarly the mother and father of the petitioner husband were also involved in the litigation and had to seek bail and it was not possible for the applicant to forgive the respondent wife. Besides he stated that he did not own any such kirana shop and neither he was owner of any immovable property, plot, nor any agricultural field, house etc in his name. Whereas the wife herself was a B.Sc. Graduate and used to give tuitions to students from home.