IRSHAD KHAN Vs. RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 06. 02. 2008 passed by Family Court, Sagar in M. J. C. No. 99/07, whereby the application filed by respondent No. 1 under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. has been allowed and the applicant is directed to pay the maintenance of Rs. 700/-per month to respondent No. 1 and Rs. 200/- per month to respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the respondents submitted an application under Section 125 of Cr. P. C. in the Family Court, Sagar to the effect that respondent No. 1 Smt Rani was married with applicant Irshad on 15. 06. 2004 and one daughter Ku. Shahin was born out of their wedlock. After some time of marriage the applicant started demanding Rs. 60,000/-for purchasing autorickshaw and golden chain and ring and started her harassment for not fulfilling the dowry demand. On 10. 08. 2007 he caused her marpeet. She informed her father, who came there and asked applicant not to harass her. The applicant threatened them and got their signatures on some blank papers. The father of the respondent took her back to his house on the same day. Applicant retained all the stridhan golden ornaments etc with him. She reported the matter at Mahila Police Station Sagar. Since then she is residing with her father. The applicant has never tried to take her back. She is not doing any job and is unable to maintain herself. On the other hand, the applicant drives auto rickshaw and also helps in the business of his father. Thus, he earns Rs. 8,000/-per month. He is hale and hearty and is capable to provide maintenance. Therefore, the prayer was made to grant maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/and Rs. 1,000/-per month to her and her daughter Ku. Shahin respectively.

(3.) APPLICANT submitted the written reply wherein he denied most of the averments made in the application. He mainly contended that she pressed him to live separately from his parents. She was not doing any household works. She did not improve herself. On 09. 08. 2007 one complaint was made by him. On 10. 08. 2007 she gave divorce in the presence of her father and some witnesses. Since she has divorced, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance. He further contended that she used to make bidi and earns there from hence capable to maintain herself. On the contrary, he is the laborer and hardly earns Rs. 20-30 per day. He is not in a position to provide maintenance hence the application be rejected.