BALVINDAR KAUR AND ANOTHER Vs. HARISINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 19 of the Family Courts Act has been filed against the order dated 22/08/2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in M.Cr.C. No.200/2016, by which the application filed by the applicant No.1 has been rejected and the application filed by the applicant No.2, who is the son of the respondent, has been allowed and the respondent has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month till the applicant No.2 attains majority.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present application in short are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- for applicant No.1 and Rs. 25,000/- for applicant No. It was contended by the applicants in the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that the applicant No.1 was married to respondent on 12/01/1997 as per Sikh rites and rituals and the applicant No.2 has born out of their wedlock on 13/10/2000 and on the date of filing of application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., he was 16 years of age and was residing along with the applicant No.1. It was alleged that after the marriage, the applicant No.1 was discharging her marital duties with utmost sincerity, however, the behaviour of the respondent remained good for some period of time, but thereafter he started harassing her. The respondent used to abuse her on trivial issues and he also used to tell her that he does not like her. Whenever the applicants used to demand money for fulfillment of their daily needs, then the respondent used to abuse them and with great difficulties, he was providing some pocket money to them. Even the respondent had put a bar on the applicant to go out of the house and even to talk to the neighbours and in fact the respondent had kept the applicant in confinement and even after the birth of the applicant No.2, the respondent never discharged the duty of a father. However, the applicant No.1 continued to stay in her matrimonial house with a hope and belief that the behavior of the respondent would improve, however, the behavior of the respondent further deteriorated day by day. Even on earlier occasion the respondent had turned out the applicant no.1 from her matrimonial house, as a result of which, she had stayed in her parental home at Ratlam along with applicant No.2 and the entire education of applicant No.2 has taken place at Ratlam. Even at present, the applicant No.1 has been turned out of her matrimonial house and she is still living at Ratlam in her parents home. With an intention to further demoralize the applicant No.1, the respondent also filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before Family Court at Ahmadabad, which has been registered as case No.1049/2014 and is still pending, and in view of the reconciliation proceedings, the applicant No.1 came back to her matrimonial house, but the misbehavior of the respondent and harassment of applicant no.1 continued, as a result of which, applicant No.1 has been forced to live separately. The respondent is working as a Civil Engineer in Municipal Corporation, Ahmadabad and is earning monthly salary of Rs. 60,000/- and he has also let out a flat and is earning Rs. 25,000/- by way of rent and is also earning Rs. 30,000/- by doing some private work. The respondent has also invested lot of money in the share market and property business and is residing in a very posh bungalow and is living a very luxurious life. Accordingly, the application was filed for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- per month to the applicant No.1 and 2 respectively.

(3.) The respondent filed his reply to the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and admitted that the applicant No.1 was married to him on 12/01/1997 at Ahmadabad as per Sikh rites and rituals and the applicant No.2 is the son of the respondent. However, the fact as regards harassment or keeping the applicant No.1 under confinement was denied. It is further stated that the applicant No.1 herself has deserted the respondent and she is willingly residing at her parents' home in Ratlam and it was also stated that in spite of the best efforts made by the respondent, the applicant No.1 never came back to her matrimonial house although the mother of the respondent was seriously sick, but even then she instead of looking after her mother-in-law and residing in her matrimonial house, was voluntarily residing at her parental home in Ratlam.