SMT. MEETA SHAIN Vs. K.P. SHAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with sections 397, 401 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed against the order dated 20/4/2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in M.Cr.C. No.294/2014 by which the application filed by the applicant under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 has been allowed and the respondent has been directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- to the applicant and Rs. 2,000/- to the child. The present revision has been filed by the applicant for enhancement of maintenance amount.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present revision in short are that the applicant filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 against the respondent on the ground that she got married to the respondent on 7/2/2004 at Kidnnur, District Kottyam, Kerala as per Hindu rites and rituals. Gold and silver ornaments, household articles, clothes, Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash etc. was given at the time of marriage. In spite of the harassment and ill-treatment by the respondent, the applicant continued to perform her marital liabilities and gave birth to a baby girl on 21/8/2008. It was also alleged that the applicant has resided with the respondent for about 10 years after her marriage. The respondent used to beat her and she was not provided treatment in case of medical emergency and even food was also not provided to her on several occasions. In the month of November, 2013, the applicant was badly beaten by the respondent and she was turned out of her matrimonial house. The applicant informed her father on telephone about the conduct of the respondent, as a result of which, her father visited her matrimonial house and tried to convince the respondent, who assured that he will not ill-treat her in future and relying on the promises made by the respondent, father of the applicant left the applicant and her child with the respondent. However, the behaviour of the respondent did not improve and he continued to harass the applicant physically as well as mentally. The applicant again informed her father about the conduct of the respondent. On 26/4/2014 her father again came to the matrimonial house of the applicant and tried to pursue the respondent, but in his turn the respondent started abusing her father and turned the applicant and her daughter out of the house, as a result of which, the applicant after making a complaint to the police station, came to Gwalior on 28/4/2014 alongwith her daughter and from thereafter she is residing in her parents' home. After turning out the applicant from her matrimonial house, the respondent did not take care of the applicant or her daughter and did not make any arrangement for the maintenance of the applicant. The applicant is residing in her parents' home from 29/4/2014 and she has no source of income and with great difficulties she is maintaining herself, as the father of the applicant has already retired from service. The respondent is working on the post of Senior Staff Assistant in Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai and his monthly gross income is around Rs. 35,000/-. The applicant is completely dependent on the respondent and is entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- per month towards the maintenance and treatment of herself and her daughter. The respondent has deserted the applicant without any reasonable reason.

(3.) The respondent filed his reply and denied the allegations. He further submitted that he never ill-treated the applicant. He admitted that he is working on the post of Senior Staff Assistant in Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai and submitted that free medical facility is extended by the employer and, therefore, the allegation of not providing any expenses for medical treatment is false. In fact it is the applicant whose behaviour towards the respondent is not good. The father of the applicant used to threaten the respondent, as a result of which, he lodged a complaint on 13/11/2013 in Police Station Kotwali, Sector 6, Bhilai. It was further alleged that the police had also advised the applicant to live peacefully with the respondent, but in spite of that she did not improve her conduct and ultimately she alongwith her daughter, without the permission of the respondent, collected her ornaments and belongings and went back to Gwalior. The respondent further admitted that his gross income is Rs. 32,674/- and it was alleged that his net take home salary is Rs. 14,158/-. The applicant had also taken a house loan, as a result of which, he is paying an additional installment of Rs. 5,292/- per month and his total saving is only Rs. 9,000/-. It was further mentioned in the reply that without raising any dispute, the respondent is ready to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month by way of maintenance to the applicant and his daughter. Thus, it is clear that the factum of marriage and the paternity of the daughter has not been denied by the respondent.