SANTOSH DEVI Vs. AZAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are impugning the order dtd. 28/2/2020, vide which the family Court while deciding the application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C, held the petitioner No.l not entitled to any maintenance, as she had refused to join the company of the respondent-husband without any sufficient reason.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners further submits that though the Family Court directed the respondent to pay maintenance in the sum of Rs.3000.00 to his child i.e. petitioner No.2, however, the said amount was inadequate and deserved to be enhanced. Learned counsel contends that the respondent was working in Baroda and earning handsome money, whereas, the petitioner No.l was unemployed and living at the mercy of her parents.

(3.) Learned counsel contends that the Family Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was a drunkard and had been subjecting the petitioner No.l to harassment, which was precisely the reason why she had refused to return to her matrimonial home.Heard and perused the material on record.