MOHANLAL BARMAN Vs. REKHA BARMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed this criminal revision under Sec. 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 feeling aggrieved by the order dated 24/03/2018 passed in M.J.C. No.88/2016 by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur whereby the applicant has been directed to pay monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 5,000.00 per month to the respondent/wife.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that the applicant got married with respondent-Smt. Rekha Barman. After marriage respondent came in the matrimonial house where applicant used to come in drunken stage and started beating the respondent and demanded Rs.two lakh as dowry. All the ornaments given during marriage by the parents of respondent, have been taken by the applicant in his possession and expelled respondent from the house. Respondent made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police and SHO of Police Station, Madan Mahal, Jabalpur. The respondent later on came to know that the applicant solemnized so many marriages before solemnizing marriage with her. Respondent filed an application under section 125 of Crimial P.C. 1973 against the applicant before Family Court. During trial both parties adduced evidence and after hearing both the parties, Family Court passed the impugned order dated 24/03/2018 thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 5,000.00 per month as monthly maintenance allowance to her.

(3.) Being aggrieved by that order, the applicant has filed this revision on the ground that there was a degree of restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the applicant against the respondent, but, respondent has not obeyed the degree and is living separately. The applicant had filed execution of the order of restitution of conjugal rights. Respondent appeared in that execution and denied to live with the applicant. She is voluntarily living separately from the company of the applicant without having sufficient justifiable cause and not performing the conjugal relationship, therefore, she is not entitled to receive the amount of maintenance, however, despite that learned Family Court has allowed the application vide impugned order, hence, the impugned order is bad in law and prays for setting aside the impugned order.