MOHANLAL RAIKWAR Vs. PREETI RAIKWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2017 passed in MJC No.200/2015 by Ist Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur whereby the learned Family Court directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent-wife.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition, in short are that, the respondent is legally wedded wife of applicant. She has filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for getting monthly maintenance allowance before the Family Court Jabalpur registered as MJC No.200/2015. The Family Court after recording the evidence of both parties and after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order dated 30.08.2017 on the basis of compromise ordered to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent.

(3.) Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has filed this revision on the ground that respondent has filed petition before Principal Judge Family Court Jabalpur for annullation of marriage, but the Family Court dismissed that application. The applicant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights has been allowed by the Family Court and respondent was directed to live with the applicant, but she refused to live with the applicant because the father of the respondent has not allowed her to live with the applicant. He has filed so many complainants against the applicant for harassing him. Learned trial Court has not considered this fact before passing the final order. The respondent is living separately without any sufficient cause, hence she is not entitled to get maintenance allowance and pray to set side the impugned order dated 30.08.2017 and also pray to dismiss the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In support of his arguments he has filed case law of Balakram vs. Smt. Durgabai and others, 2007 1 MPWN 10 in which this Court observed that after the decree of restitution of conjugal rights if wife is not lived with the husband is ground for refusal of the maintenance allowance.