ATUL CHOURE Vs. SMT. APARNA CHOURE & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The applicant has filed this criminal revision challenging the order dated 17/12/2015 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in MJC No. 331/2011 thereby allowing the application preferred by respondents No. 1 and 2 under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 and 2 filed an application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 before Family Court stating that respondent No. 1 had entered into the marriage with the applicant as per hindu customs and rituals on 20/05/1997. Respondent No. 1 has given the birth to respondent No. 2 out of the said wedlock. Immediately after the marriage, applicant and his family members have ill-treated her for demand of dowry. It was also contended that while respondent No. 1 was hospitalized at the time of delivery of respondent No. 2, the applicant has abused and assaulted her. The parents of the applicant has also ill-treated her for demand of dowry and when the father of respondent No. 1 refused to provide the money to the applicant for purchasing house, then the applicant has deserted respondent No. 1 and her father has taken her to Bhopal. Thereafter, respondent has filed an application and contended that respondent No. 2 was aged 13 years and was studying in Class-VII for which respondent No. 1 has no means of her livelihood. While the applicant is Civil Engineer and was employed under a Private Company. Besides above he also doing work of consultation and in this way earns Rs. 40,000/- per month. The applicant filed reply of the said application and stated that from 12/10/11998 respondents has deserted the company of applicant without any reasonable cause and since last 14 years she has been living separately at the house of her parents. Respondents have denied that they have demanded any dowry from respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has also filed a false complaint against the applicant and registered a criminal case against the applicant under Sections 498-A and 409 of the IPC. The applicant has also filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It has further been submitted that the applicant is doing private job and earn Rs. 12,000/- per month and he has liability of maintenance of old aged parents. Respondent No. 1 is working in Doordarshan as Comparer and earns Rs. 10,000/- per month and by tuition and coaching earns of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, her application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 is liable to be rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is on higher side. He submits that learned Court below has erred in exercising the jurisdiction while arriving a finding that the applicant is ill-treated to respondent No. 1 for demand of dowry. He further submits that respondent No. 1 on her own way residing separately from the applicant without any sufficient reason. He further submits that the applicant has been acquitted in the criminal case which has been registered by respondent No. 1 against the applicant. He further submits that the Family Court has erred in assessing the income of the applicant as Rs. 40,000/- per month. He further submits that the Family Court has also over looked the fact that respondent No. 1 was working in Doordarshan and earning Rs. 10,000/-. The Family Court has further erred in not considering the documents filed by respondents as D-63, D-60, D-59 and D-61 which shows that respondent No. 1 recently work in Doordarshan. In such circumstances, he submits that the order passed by the Family Court is illegal and arbitrary.