SUDHA RANI Vs. MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner wife who was married to the respondent on February 25, 1984 at Gurgaon came to Court under section 125 Cr.P.C. with assertions that (i) the husband and his family members were maltreating her for bringing insufficient dowry; (ii) the husband was keeping a mistress by the name of Seema even prior to the date of marriage and (iii) she was turned out of the matrimonial home on March 13, 1984, i.e, just after 20 days of the marriage by giving her beatings. The respondent controverted all these assertions as false and frivolous and maintained that as a matter of fact she did not want to live at Delhi where he was employed as a Peon in the office of the Delhi Development Authority and rather insisted in their living at Gurgaon, i.e., her parents home town. But in spite of that he was willing to keep her in his house as his wife. As a result of the trial that followed in the light of these pleadings though the trial Magistrate granted her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/ - P.M. yet the revisional Court, i.e., the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, dismissed her application after recording a conclusive finding that she had completely failed to establish any of the above noted three assertions made in her application.

(2.) MR . Jain, the petitioner's learned counsel urges that the lower revisional Court has not properly appreciated the evidence in its true perespecitve and has thus recorded an unsustainable factual finding. Though I am satisfied that in these proceedings I am not required to reappraise the evidence on record to upset a factual finding recorded by the lower Court yet since the matter was gone into by the revisional Court, on merits. I have chosen to look into the evidence on record in the light of the respective stand of the parties. Having done that I unhesitatingly affirm the conclusion of the revisional Court. For recording the above noted finding the said Court primarily depended on three letters, Exhibit R. 1 to R. 3, concededly written by the petitioner soon after the day the two spouses parted company. The first letter, i.e. R. 1, was written by her on March 16, 1984, i.e., three days after the alleged turning out of her from the matrimonial home but in this letter not even a remote reference has been made to any of the assertions now pleaded by her. Similarly in the other two letters there is not the slightest indication that the respondent or his family members had behaved or misbehaved in the manner suggested by her in her application under section 125 Cr.P.C. or in her statement during the course of these proceedings. In the two letters written to the husband the third was written to his brother and his wife -she has tried to be humble by be leashing forgiveness for the mistakes she had committed while at the house of the respondents. She even eulogized him as his Devta or 'Guru' In spite of that when she entered the witness box as PW, 1, she categorically stated that she was not prepared to live with the respondent husband as be was keeping a mistress. She, however, admitted that her father bad been telling the respondent to come and live at Gurgaon. On the contrary the respondent in his reply to the application as well as in his statement as RW -1, offered to keep and maintain the petitioner as his wife. As has been pointed out earlier, there cannot be better evidence than the three letters, Exhibits R. 1 to R. 3 to falsify the stand of the petitioner. In these letters she has nowhere adverted to any of the matters pleaded by her.

(3.) FOR the foregoing reasons I find no infirmity in the impugned order and thus dismiss this petition.