VIKAS SHUKLA Vs. NEETU SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 15.12.2014 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind in Criminal Revision No. 147/2014 by which the Revisional Court had enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 4000/- per month.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the applicant got married to the respondent about 15 years back. An application under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 was filed by the respondent on 16.3.2012 alleging that she was married to the applicant about 11 years back as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and at the time of the marriage Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash apart from the other domestic household articles were given by her father but the applicant and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by her father and they were constantly demanding Rs. 1,00,000/- and a motorcycle. Because of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry, the respondent was maltreated and harassed by the applicant and his family members. As the respondent could not conceive, therefore, on that issue also the applicant and his family members used to harass and scold her frequently. It was further submitted that from 23.2.2012 she is residing along with her parents and she has no independent source of income and, therefore, she prayed for a maintenance of amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the applicant.

(3.) The applicant by filing his reply to the application filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 denied the allegations made in the said application. It was further denied that the respondent was ever treated with cruelty. It was further denied that any demand of dowry was ever made at any point of time. It was further submitted that the applicant was willing to reside with the respondent and for that purposes he had also filed a petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act in which the matter was compromised and it was agreed by the respondent that she would live with the applicant. However, she left her matrimonial house on 23.2.2012 on the pretext that she is going to the market and thereafter she did not come back. When the applicant tried to contact her on mobile phone, she extended the threat that now nobody can save him. It was further submitted that the respondent is running a Beauty Parlour and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.