SHOBHA Vs. KRUSHNAKANT PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by petitioner Shobha w/o Krishnakant being aggrieved by order dated 16.10.2007 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 25/05 dismissing the petitioner's claim to maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.

(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 30.1.1983, 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 -law on 10.9.2001, 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 haying 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 to the Trial Court on 27.1.2005.

(3.) DISCLAIMING her right to maintenance, the respondent husband also claimed that the wife was an employee in the Gitanjali Primary School run by Abhyuthan Mahila Sewa Samiti which was run by her parents. The husband also claimed that son Nilesh had also become a teacher in the said school and both of them did not require maintenance as claimed. Regarding his own income, he stated that he was merely a teacher and did not own any agricultural land as alleged nor did he earn Rs. 20,000 to 30,000. Moreover, his parents were dependent on him and the applicant wife and her son Nilesh are not entitled to maintenance as claimed.