SAPNA DEVI AND ANOTHER Vs. HANS KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 25.10.2012 (Annexure P1) passed by learned District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani is under challenge in this revision petition brought under the provisions of section 401 Cr.P.C. Smt. Sapna Devi for herself and her minor daughter, Parvesh brought a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent seeking maintenance. Vide the impugned order, learned District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani allowed the petition so far as it concerned Parvesh and awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to her. However, so far as Sapna Devi is concerned, learned District Judge (Family Court), Bhiwani has observed that she is living separately from the respondent without any reasonable cause and, therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance from the respondent.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Sapna Devi, petitioner No.1 was forced to live separately. According to him, she had been treated with cruelty by making demands for dowry and she has been turned out of her matrimonial home and that she was living separately on account of being turned out of her matrimonial home.

(3.) He has submitted that learned District Judge (Family Court) has come to the conclusion that the petitioner could not prove that she was living separately on account of the acts of her husband. According to him, it is the husband who has to prove that without any sufficient reason, the wife refused to live with him or that the wife was living separately by mutual consent. In this regard, he has cited a decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Bai Ganga Vs. Harijan Ghiman Shanker and another,1965 1 CrLJ 387. He has also cited two other decisions in the matter Mannava Satyawati and others Vs. Mannava Malleswara Rao, 1995 Supp3 SCC 259 and Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai, 2008 2 SCC 316.