SHOBHA KRUSHNAKANT PANDYA Vs. KRUSHNAKANT PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by petitioner Shobha who krishnakant being aggrieved by order dated 16-10-07 passed in Miscellaneous case No. 25/05 dismissing the petitioner's claim to maintenance under Section 125ofthecr. PC.

(2.) BRIEF facts as alleged by the petitioner are that the petitioner was married to respondent Krishnakant on 6th of May, 1982 at Ujjain. As a result of matrimony, petitioner wife gave birth to son Nilesh on 30-1-83, however, within a short span, the petitioner complained that she was turned out of the house of the respondent husband by his family members, since then she has been residing on and off with her parents. The petitioner wife also gave birth to son Nilesh in her parental home and all the expenses had been borne by her parents. When she had taken the little child along with her to her in-laws at Badnagar, the child was ill-treated and had to be hospitalized despite which she returned to her husband's house. When finally she was turned out by her husband, she did not lose courage, but made an attempt by staying with her parents to try and patch up with the husband. When there was death of her sister-in-laws on 10-9-01, she visited the respondent husband to offer her condolence, but her husband threatened that in case she visited them again, he would commit suicide, then all hope having deserted her, she did not visit her in-laws again. The petitioner wife has alleged that since 1982 her parents were looking after her and her husband has not contributed anything towards the maintenance of herself or her son nilesh. On death of the parents, she was left with no other alternative, but to claim maintenance for herself and her son which she did by the application for the Trial Court on 27-1-05.

(3.) AFTER a period of almost 25 years of marriage, she claimed that her husband earned around Rs. 20,000/- - Rs. 30,000/- per month as a teacher and she claimed Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance. The non-applicant opposed her claim on the ground that he had never refused to maintain either the wife or his child Nilesh. It was the petitioner wife who had herself left the matrimonial home and had failed to file claim maintenance since she herself has refused to return to her matrimonial home and was staying at Ujjain since 1996. The respondent husband also denied the fact that the applicant wife had visited his home Badnagar or that she had been turned out as- claimed. In 19% on the occasion of Rakshabandhan, she had left the home herself and never returned; even on 10-9-01 on the death of his sister, she did not turn up as claimed by the petitioner wife at Badnagar, since the condolence meeting was not held at badnagar at all. Hence, the lies of the petitioner wife were very much evident.