SMT. SHIKHARANI Vs. HITENDRA CHUDASMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.04.2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (MP), in Criminal Appeal No. 432/2017 & 450/2017arising out of the order dated 02.11.2017 in criminal Case No. 3200024/12, passed by JMFC Jabalpur, whereby the learned JMFC has considered the application filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as 'Act 2005') and order to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- per month to the petitioner and Rs. 2000/- per month to her son. Further, it is also directed that the respondent shall also pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- per month for arranging the residence of the petitioner. In appeal, the learned Appellate Court has set aside the order dated 02.11.2017.

(2.) According to case, petitioner/applicant has preferred an application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 stating that her marriage was solemnized with the respondent/non-applicant on 13.04.2011 according to Hindu rites and rituals and they have been blessed with one male child namely Ayush Kumar. The respondent and his family members maltreated the petitioner and they demanded one Maruti Car, one gold Chain and Rs.7,00,000/- as dowry. She further contended that the respondent has blamed on her character and committed sexual assault with her. The respondent has not fulfilled basic need of the petitioner. Her son- Ayush is studying and she has no source of income to take care of him properly. She further stated that the respondent restricted her to go out from the house, moreover, without taking her consent, the respondent had sold her stridhan and other valuable article. She further alleged that the respondent tried to throw her son from the terrace. She also prays to give interim compensation under the act.

(3.) On reply, the respondent stated that the petitioner has filed a false case against him and the facts narrated by her are concocted. The petitioner had suppressed the fact that she was already married with one Dhananjay Mandal and she is having two daughter to him. When this fact came to knowledge of the respondent, the petitioner started quarrel with him. He further stated that the petitioner demanded Rs. 4,00,000/- and threatened him to falsely implicate in the case. The family members of the respondent were not involved in the case in any manner even then the petitioner has also implicated them. He stated about his income saying that he is under suspension period whereas the petitioner is earning Rs. 20,000/- to 25,000/- from her beauty parlour work.