MEETU @ RITU Vs. AMANDEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dtd. 13/2/2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Family Court, Jind, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed holding the petitioner not entitled to final or interim maintenance.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife inter alia submits that the petitioner is a mere villager. On the other hand, the respondent is working as a mason in a factory and earning Rs.12,000.00 per month. It is submitted that during marriage life of the petitioner, she was beaten mercilessly by the respondent and his family. The parents of the petitioner spent about Rs.3.00 lakh in the marriage and besides gave sufficient dowry articles. However, the respondent and his family were not satisfied and demanded motorcycle and used to humiliate and taunt the petitioner on one pretext or the other. A demand of Rs.2.00 lakh was also made for construction of their house on vacant land. On 31/7/2014, the petitioner was given merciless beatings by the respondent and his family members. In this respect, the petitioner has even filed FIR No.422 dtd. 6/6/2015 under Ss. 498-A, 406, 323 and 506 IPC at Police Station City Jind, which is still pending. All the istridhan of the petitioner was forcibly kept by the respondent and his family. The petitioner is a villager and not earning anything. The respondent is working in a polythene carry bag factory and getting Rs.12,000.00 per month.

(3.) It is further submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same has been passed merely on account of the fact that the petitioner was unable to give the particulars i.e. the date, time and birthplace of her first child/son in the petition under sec. 125 Cr.P.C.; and had only disclosed regarding the second child/daughter namely Arti on 29/9/2013. It is submitted that the petitioner being uneducated and rustic villager was unable to provide the said details regarding her son. However, the same constitutes no ground for dismissal of her petition under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the learned Family Court has also wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the respondent is earning only Rs.6.007 thousand per month. It is reiterated that the respondent is earning Rs.12,000.00 per month.