SHIV KUMAR Vs. SUNITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 21.6.2013 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1 Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Revision No.9-P/2012, whereby he has upheld the order dated 21.10.2011 rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala in Criminal Petition No.47-IV/2008.

(2.) "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the marriage between Shiv Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the "petitioner for the sake of convenience) and Sunita Devi (hereinafter referred to as "respondent No.1" for the sake of convenience) was solemnized as per Hindu rites at Village Rasan, Tehsil Dharamshala, District Kangra. Out of the wedlock, respondent No.2 Kumari Ashima was born on 15.3.2008. According to respondent No.1, relations between the parties remained cordial for about 3-4 months after marriage. Even when she was pregnant, petitioner and his family members continued harassment and torment. The doctor had advised her not to do hard work. She was forced to do hard work by the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner even did not accompany her for routine medical examination. She was even forced to sleep on the floor during winter. She was not allowed to use hot water and household articles. On 14.1.2008, she was compelled to leave the matrimonial house along with respondent No.2. On 25.1.2008, her sister-in-law and aunt at the request of her parents accompanied her to the matrimonial house, but the petitioner and his family members took up a quarrel with them and ousted them from the house. After birth of respondent No.2, neither petitioner nor his family members visited respondent No.1. The petitioner has failed to take care of respondents. According to respondent No.1, the petitioner is carpenter by profession and earns about Rs.7000/- - Rs.8000/- per month. Respondent No.1 has no source of income to maintain herself and respondent No.2. Hence, respondents filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance to the tune of Rs.1500/- each per month.

(3.) The petition was contested by the petitioner. According to him, respondent No.1 stayed for about 2 1/2 months in the matrimonial home. She used to leave her matrimonial house without permission of the petitioner. She was never deprived of maintenance. He came to know about the pregnancy of respondent No.1 from his mother-in-law. The petitioner and his family members visited the parental house of respondent No.1 many times, but her parents did not allow them to meet respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 was living in adultery. Respondent No.1 had left the matrimonial house on 26.1.2008. His monthly income was only Rs.2000/-.