GANNSHYAM Vs. REKHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition filed under S.482 CrPC lays challenge to order dtd. 8/3/2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, HP camp at Karsog, allowing Criminal Revision No. 33/2013 filed under S.397 CrPC by the respondents, laying therein challenge to order dtd. 31/7/2013 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, whereby petition having been filed by them under S.125 CrPC, came to be dismissed.

(2.) Precisely, the facts of the case as emerge from record, are that marriage inter se petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized in the year 2009 as per customs prevailing in the society and since then both were living as husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, one son namely Pawan Kumar, respondent No.2 was born. Since after some time of marriage, certain differences cropped inter se parties, and petitioner under the influence of liquor started giving beatings to the respondent No. 1, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial house. Allegedly, on the night of 15/9/2011, petitioner gave beatings to the respondent No.1 under the influence of liquor and turned her out of his house, as such respondent No.1 was compelled to take shelter in the house of her neighbourer and on the next day, she went to her parental house. Record reveals that respondent No.1 filed an application before Sub Divisional Magistrate Karsog, praying therein for the custody of her minor son i.e. respondent No.2. Sub Divisional Magistrate Karsog directed the petitioner to take respondent No.1 back to his house, however, outside the court complex, petitioner threatened the respondent No.1 with dire consequences, if she comes back to his house and since then respondent No.1 alongwith her minor son started residing at her parental house. Respondent No.1 instituted proceedings under S.125 CrPC, praying therein for maintenance on the facts and circumstances narrated herein above and claimed that after 16/9/2011, petitioner never came to take her back as well as her minor son, rather, he is threatening her with dire consequences on mobile phone, as such, it is very difficult to live with petitioner. She submitted before learned court below that she being a poor lady has no source of income, whereas, petitioner has income of Rs.9000.00 from all sources and as such, he be directed to provide adequate maintenance to them.

(3.) Aforesaid plea made on behalf of respondent No.1 came to be resisted by the petitioner, who stated before the learned trial court below that at no point of time, he compelled respondent No.1 to leave the matrimonial house rather, she of her own volition left his company and as such, she is not entitled to any maintenance.