SANDEEP CHOURASIA Vs. NAJIYA SIDDHIQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed by the applicant/husband under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., challenging the order dated 02.11.2015 passed by the JMFC, Budhar whereby maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of the respondent/wife. The aforesaid order was confirmed by the First Additional Session Judge, Budhar vide order dated 18.10.2016 in Criminal Appeal No.(nill).

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent belongs to Muslim community and has filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act against the applicant, before the trial Court, stating that their marriage was solemnised six years ago in Mahakaleshwar Temple, Ujjain. After some time, the applicant started harassing the respondent and demanded Rs. 10 lakhs as dowry. Thereafter, he left her. Since then the respondent is living separately. She filed an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act against the applicant and claimed maintenance. The learned trial Court awarded Rs. 2,000/- per month in favour of the respondent/wife as interim maintenance. The appellate Court affirmed the order passed by the trial Court.

(3.) Applicant has filed the present revision on the grounds that, the respondent falsely claimed maintenance allowance from him on the basis of a concocted story regarding their marriage. She is not his wife. However, the learned trial Court awarded interim maintenance allowance in her favour. In fact, the respondent also received Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance in Criminal Case No. 64/2015 passed by the JMFC, Budhar vide order dated 21.10.2016. The applicant also contended that they belong from the same place but are working in different places i.e. Mumbai and Baldana in Maharashtra. The respondent was working in Mumbai in private company and earning Rs. 40,000/- to 50,000/- per month. But she has resigned from her job. She is well qualified and able to earn sufficient income. The applicant is already married to another woman. The respondent has not filed any document proving her marriage to the applicant. Nor she has filed any complaint earlier against him. Only to harass him, she filed the false case against him. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.