SUKHDEV PAKHARWAL Vs. REKHA OKHLE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision filed on behalf of petitioner/husband Sukhdev is directed against order dated 18.11.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raisen in M.Cr.C.No. 47/2015, whereby the application filed by respondent no.1/wife Rekha under Section 125(1) (a) of the Cr.P.C. for maintenance was allowed and husband Sukhdev was directed to pay her monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of the order.

(2.) The case of wife Rekha before the trial Court was that she married husband Sukhdev on 28.05.2004. Her husband Sukhdev kept her well for a period of about a year or year and half; however, thereafter, he and his family members used to taunt her for bringing insufficient dowry. Husband and his relatives used to demand Rs. 50,000/- in cash and a motorcycle. When their demand was not met, they used to harass, persecute and beat her. Meanwhile, her daughter Mahi was born in the wedlock. About 3-4 years before filing the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. husband Sukhdev dropped her and her daughter at her mother's place and is refusing to maintain her ever since. Her poor mother is unable to maintain her and her daughter. Wife is unable to maintain herself; whereas, husband is a healthy person. He is a government teacher and earns Rs.10,000/- per month; yet, he has not made any provision for maintenance of his wife and daughter, therefore, it was prayed that maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month be awarded to wife Rekha and daughter Mahi.

(3.) Husband Sukhdev admitted before the trial Court that he and Rekha married on 28.05.2004. In the year, 2006, wife Rekha, deserted husband Sukhdev of her own free will and accord and has been living in her maternal home ever since. Thereafter, he went to her matrimonial home on numerous occasions to bring her back to her matrimonial home; however, she straightaway declined to accompany him. As such, there has been no conjugal relation between the parties since the year, 2006. Daughter Mahi was born in the year, 2009. Thus, she could not have been born in the wedlock. In these circumstances, it has been prayed that the application for maintenance be dismissed.