BHARTI RAI Vs. MUKESH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have filed this revision against the order dated 136- 2006 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge ( Fast Track) Gadarwara, district Narsinghpur, in Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2006, setting aside the order passed on 26-10-2005, by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gadarwara, in M.J.C. No. 93 of 2003 awarding maintenance to petitioner Bharti Rai under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner Bharti Rai was married to respondent Mukesh Rai on 24-5-2001. Out of the wedlock she gave birth to a female child. According to her, at the time of the marriage her father had given sufficient dowry in cash and kind to Mukesh Rai. After elapse of some time after the marriage her father-in-law Shankarlal, mother-in-law Radha Bai, her husband's younger brother Durgesh Rai and Rajesh Rai started harassing her and subjecting her to cruelty. They used to taunt that if they would have married Mukesh some where else, they would have got much more dowry. They insisted her to bring colour television and a motor cycle. At the time of her delivery her in-laws told that if she gave birth to a daughter, they would not keep her.

(3.) Respondent/husband denied all the allegations levelled by petitioner Bharti Rai. According to him, the relations between him and his wife were cordial. At the time of delivery he got his wife admitted in the hospital but after the delivery her mother, against his wishes, took Bharti Rai to her house. Though he tried to make her understand that she should live at his house but she did not yield to his request. On 30-5-2002 his younger brother Durgesh and maternal uncle went to fetch her but she and her family members insulted and abused them and turned them out. They also misbehaved with other relatives also, who went to her house to fetch her. According to him, she expressed that she would go to live with her husband only on the condition that he would transfer his tempo and shop on her name and would arrange for a good house on the first floor. It was also stated that she did not want to live with his parents and forced him to live separate. He also sent a registered notice (Ex. D/3) through his advocate to petitioner on 312- 2002, asking her to come back.