SANGITA JAIN & OTHERS Vs. ANIL JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 21-4-2009, passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.1, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has denied the maintenance to the petitioner No.1, but has granted maintenance to petitioner No.2 & 3, Rupali and Romil, respectively, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that according to the petitioner No.1, she married the respondent, Anil Jain, on 4-2-1995. Out of their wedlock on 25-10-1995, twins were born, namely, Rupali and Romil. The petitioner No.1 and the respondent lived together, as husband and wife, till 3-5-2000. However, as the petitioner No.1 was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by the respondent for dowry demands, she eventually left the matrimonial home on 3-5-2000. On 4-5-2000, she filed a FIR, FIR No.173/2000, against the respondent, for offences under sections 342 and 498A IPC. The petitioner also sought financial help from the respondent, as she was facing difficulty in maintaining herself and her two children. But the respondent turned a deaf ear to all her pleas. Consequently, on 16-9-2002, the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court, vide order dated 20-9-2004, directed the respondent to pay Rs.2000/- per month to petitioner No.1, and Rs.1000/- each, to petitioner No.2 and 3. The said amount was to be paid from the date of filing of the application i.e. 16-9-2002.

(3.) Since, the respondent was aggrieved by the order dated 20-9- 2004, he filed a revision petition before this court. Vide order dated 19-1-2009, this Court remanded the case back to learned Family Court with the direction to give opportunity of hearing to the respondent and to pass the necessary order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the respondent produced his witnesses and documents. After hearing both the parties, the learned Family Court vide order dated 21-4-2009 has held that while the petitioner No.1 is not entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent, the petitioners No.2 and 3, namely, Rupali and Romil, are entitled to receive maintenance Rs.2000/- per month from respondent from 20-9-2004. Since the petitioner No.1 is aggrieved by the denial of maintenance to her, she has approached this Court.