SHIVDAYAL YADAV Vs. PRABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 397 / 401 of the Cr.P.C. against the order dated 04.07.2014, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Satna (MP), in MJC No. 341/2014, whereby Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the respondent and it is directed to the petitioner to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.4,000/-to the respondent No.1 and Rs. 2,000/- to the respondents No. 2 and 3 each.

(2.) According to case, respondent No.1/applicant No.1 has preferred an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. stating that her marriage was solemnized with the petitioner/non-applicant in the year 1997 and they have blessed with two child i.e. respondents No. 2 and 3.The petitioner and his family members maltreated the respondent No. 1 and they had thrown her out from their house in the year 2001. After making several efforts, petitioner was not ready to keep her. She further contended that respondents No. 2 and 3 are studying and she has no source of income to take care of them, whereas petitioner is playing a vehicle and he has two houses. He has also some shops which are running in rent and petitioner gets Rs. 15,000/- per months from it. The part of the house of petitioner is also in rent and he gets of Rs. 6,000/- per month from it. She further contended that in compliance of Court order, she went to the house of petitioner but they had not allowed her to enter into their house. The petitioner has performed second marriage, so she has also filed a complaint under Section 498-A / 34 of IPC.

(3.) The petitioner has filed a reply stating that respondent No. 3 is not his son and he and his family members never tortured her. In the year 2001, respondent went to her parental house on his own will. In proceeding under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act, respondent No. 1 did not allege anything with regard to demand of dowry. He further contended that he is labour and he has no sufficient means to give the maintenance. Respondent No.1 is an educated lady and she does not want to live with him. She has also not complied the order passed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. Respondent No.1 is teacher in Shishu Bal Shiksha Mandir wherein, respondents No. 2 and 3 are studying without paying fee. Respondent No.1 is getting salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. In proceeding of Section 9 , respondent No. 1 has accepted the fact that the petitioner is not earning. He further stated that since 2001, he is continuously making efforts to live with respondent No.1 but she did not return back. In the proceedings of "Paramarsh Kendra", she also refused to live with petitioner.