SMT. RAGINI KOKTE Vs. AJAY KOKTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner Smt. Ragini Kokte against the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tikamgarh in M.Cr.C. No.124/10 by which the learned trial Court was pleased to dismiss the application under Sec. 125 of Crimial P.C. filed by the petitioner herein.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the trial Court on the ground that the application under Sec. 125 of Crimial P.C. was dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioner was unable to make out a legitimate ground for staying separately from her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lead me through the trial Court's statement of PW-1 Ragini wherein she states in para 1 that her marriage took place with the respondent as per Hindu rites and rituals on 21.4.2003. She has further stated that at the time of marriage, Rs. 75,000.00 in cash, one bed, almirah and cooler was given by way of dowry and that about Rs. 2.5 Lacs was incurred by the father towards the marriage expenses. She states that immediately after the marriage, when she went to her matrimonial home, her mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law and father-in-law said that her father had not given any thing by way of dowry and so she should get Rs. 50,000.00 in cash, colour television and then come otherwise they will not keep her. She has also stated that in the very first month, her in-laws had beaten her and also were demanding more dowry. She also states that her brother and sister-in-law had come to take her away and in front of them also, her in-laws had abused her and beaten her. In fact, all those statements made by the petitioner in her examination-in-chief were taken note of by the learned trial Court which has extensively reproduced her examination and cross-examination in para 10 of its judgment wherein, it has reproduced all those instances of physical torture and beatings inflicted upon the petitioner. Thereafter, in para 11 of the impugned order, the learned trial Court has referred to the statement of the respondent and has relied upon those portions of his evidence where the respondent has stated that the petitioner was in the habit of going to her matrimonial home very often and that in the first year of marriage, she had to her matrimonial home about 8 to 10 times. The learned trial Court has also relied upon the statement of the respondent wherein it has been stated that the petitioner had gone of her own sweet will to her matrimonial home and the allegations levelled upon the petitioner to the effect of physical beatings and torture were denied by the respondent. The learned trial Court has also reproduced that portion of the statement of the respondent in cross-examination where he has denied the dowry of Rs. 75,000.00 being given at the time of marriage but has otherwise accepted of having received a motorcycle, cooler and wooden box, bed, sofa-set and 7 pieces of crockery at the time of marriage. The learned trial Court in para 13 of the impugned order has taken note of the petitioner's statement that she was beaten for the second time at her matrimonial home at which point, the ornaments were removed from her and she was asked for more dowry. It is also recorded in its order that the petitioner in her cross-examination has reiterated the infliction of torture upon her after marriage.

(3.) I have perused the court statements of the wife Petitioner and the Respondent in detail. In her examination in Chief, the Petitioner has stated clearly in paragraph one that a dowry of Rs. 75,000.00 cash along with bed, almirah, vanity case and air cooler, totalling to about two to two and half lakhs was given to the Respondent and his family. In the same paragraph, the Petitioner further states that from the very beginning she was beaten by the Respondent and his family members who included his parents, sister and elder brother. She states that her mother in law, father in law, sister in law and brother in law demanded fifty thousand rupees in cash and a colour television from her. Further, when the Petitioner's brother and sister in law came to take the Petitioner to her parental home, the Respondent and his family members beat the Petitioner and abused her in front of the Petitioner's brother and sister in law. When she returned from her parental home to her marital home, she states that the beatings continued and the Petitioner's in laws took away the Petitioner's jewellery. After that when she went back to her parental home, she states that she had made a complaint before the police there who referred her case to the mediation centre where the Respondent and his parents were also called and in the mediation, the Respondent told the police that they would look after the Petitioner well henceforth. Upon such assurance, the Petitioner is said to have returned to her matrimonial home but thereafter the Respondent and his family members started beating her again and reiterated their demand for fifty thousand rupees in cash as dowry. Unable to bear the same she informed her brother who came there along with her father and took her away to her parental home. She has stated that the Respondent is a computer operator with the MPEB and that he draws a monthly salary of eight thousand rupees. Besides, he is also giving loan on interest and earning therefrom too.