SANDEEP VERMA Vs. PRIYANKA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two separate revisions have been filed by the parties as they are aggrieved with the judgment rendered by the Family Court, Faridabad dated 02.03.2015.

(2.) The facts which are requisite to be stated for adjudication of these revisions arise from a petition filed under Sec. 125 Crimial P.C. The facts inter alia are; Priyanka was married to Sandeep in Nov., 2003. They had two children. The wife had alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and she was turned out of the house in Sept., 2010. Both the children were also taken from her. She lodged an FIR in Dec., 2010 under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 Penal Code and also filed a petition under Sec. 125 Crimial P.C. and another under the Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody of the minor children. The wife claimed that she was living with her parents at Faridabad and was not trained enough for any avocation. She had pleaded that she was 19 years old at the time of her marriage and was a student and she could not pursue her education further as she was not permitted to study after marriage. It was also averred that the husband was a jeweller and running a jewellery store in Mangolpuri, Delhi in the name and style of M/s. Hari Krishan Jewellers, which was in the name of his father. It was pleaded that respondent was a graduate and was earning Rs.2 lacs per month from the jewellery store. It was also pleaded that the respondent owned several properties in Delhi which included a showroom given on rent. The elder brother of the husband was also running a jewellery shop in Sector-3 by the name of M/s. Soni Jewellers but the family was joint and their collective income was Rs.5 lacs per month.

(3.) The application for grant of maintenance was resisted with immense vigour disputing the averments pertaining to demand of dowry or harassment. It was pleaded that he was already paying Rs.20,000.00 per month under the orders passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridabad vide order dated 17.05.2011 and the wife was not entitled to further maintenance. It was pleaded that the wife was in illicit relationship with other persons and she was found with other men on three occasions and she left the matrimonial home with her brother leaving both the sons in his custody on 06.09.2010. It was pleaded that in the proceedings initiated under the Guardian and wards Act, both the children refused to go with her. It was pleaded that he was a gold smith and not a jeweller and was working under his father and had no independent source of income. It was pleaded that the petitioner was getting money from other persons and the relations were confirmed from the call details from the two cell phones.