KALPANA SHARMA Vs. NEELAM KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, order dated 5.11.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi in Criminal Revision No. 2 of 2011, modifying the order, dated 13.8.2010, of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sarkaghat in Cr.M.A. No. 30-IV/2008, has been assailed.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that petitioner had filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against the respondent on the ground that petitioner and respondent were married on 16.1.2005. THE parties have no issue from the wedlock. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? THE petitioner lived with respondent till 26.5.2006. THEreafter the petitioner was forcibly turned out from the matrimonial home. It has been stated that after about 20 days of marriage, the respondent and his other family members started harassing and maltreating the petitioner for bringing insufficient dowry. It has been alleged that respondent and his parents had been taking Rs. 10,000/- per month from the father of the petitioner for depositing installment of vehicle loan in the bank. THE father of the petitioner was also forced to pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of the illness of the petitioner.

(3.) THE respondent contested the petition by filing reply. THE petitioner was never ousted from the matrimonial home. THE petitioner and respondent were living together. It has been stated that father of the petitioner has forcibly taken her. THE harassment to the petitioner has been denied. It has been denied that any dowry was demanded from the petitioner. THE father of the petitioner is Senior Assistant in the Education Department. THE father of the respondent is a teacher. THE father of the petitioner and father of the respondent remained posted together in government school, Triphlaghat. THEy were good friends. THE marriage was arranged between the petitioner and respondent. It has been denied that Rs. 50,000/- were paid by the father of the petitioner. It has been denied that respondent has kept one woman Babli. THE respondent has borrowed money from Tata Enterprises and the vehicle was being maintained by the father of the respondent. THE maltreatment to the petitioner has been denied.