DEEPAK AGGARWAL Vs. NIDHI BANSAL & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in Case No.48/2010 (Smt. Nidhi Agrawal and another vs. Deepak Agarwal), whereby the monthly maintenance @ Rs.15000/- and Deepak Aggarwal vs. Nidhi Bansal and another Rs.10000/- has been awarded in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2, respectively, this revision under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner-husband.

(2.) The facts giving rise to filing of this revision are that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and respondent No.1 on 23/11/2015. Thereafter dispute arose with regard to demand of dowry. The respondent-wife was tortured by the petitioner-husband and for couple of days she was not provided food. She informed about torture and misbehaviour with her to her parents on phone. It is also alleged that the petitioner demanded the dowry on phone from the father of respondent No.1 and threatening was also given by the petitioner to remarry. Due to this, the respondent No.1's father got depression and ultimately suffered heart-attack and died. In the month of September, 2007, the respondent No.1 gave birth to a girl, to which the petitioner expressed his displeasure and tried to press the born baby's throat and she was saved by the persons present there. At that time also, a demand was made by the petitioner and the respondent No.1 along with her daughter was left by him in Gwalior. The respondent No.1 has no source of income and therefore unable to maintain herself and her daughter. Hence, she moved an application under Section 125 of CrPC for claiming maintenance for herself as well as for her daughter. The Family Court partly allowed the Deepak Aggarwal vs. Nidhi Bansal and another application and directed the petitioner to pay maintenance @ Rs.15000/- per month in favour of respondent No.1 and Rs.10000/- per month in favour of respondent No.2. Against which, the petitioner has preferred this revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent-Nidhi has voluntarily abondoned the house of the petitioner and she is living an adulterous life with one Nitin. The respondent No.1 has concealed the fact that a divorce decree has already been passed by Ludhiana Court on the ground of adultery, cruelty and desertion vide judgment and decree dated 24.1.2011 The impugned order has not assigned any appropriate reason, hence the order with regard to maintenance be set aside.