GOMA @ GOMTI Vs. CHHOTEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, District Dausa, whereby the learned Judge has quashed the maintenance order dated 22.02.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Sikrai, wherein the learned Magistrate had directed the respondent to pay Rs. 1,000/- to petitioner No. 1 and Rs. 500/- to petitioner No.2.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 Smt. Goma @ Gomti, was married to respondent, Chhotey Lal. On 15.06.1996, the Gona ceremony was performed. According to the petitioner No.1, initially she was looked after well by her husband and her in-laws. However, subsequently, they subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. She further claimed that even during her pregnancy, they did not bother to look after her. According to her, on 28.06.2002, she was not only assaulted, but was also deprived of her clothes; she was thrown out of her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she came back to her parental house and a child was born. Since she was unable to look after herself and her child, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. In order to prove her case, the petitioner No.1 not only examined herself as a witness, but also examined three witnesses. The respondent, on the other hand, also examined three witnesses including himself. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide order dated 22.02.2003, the learned Magistrate granted the maintenance as aforementioned. Since the respondent was aggrieved by the said order, he filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. Vide order dated 10.06.2003, the learned Judge quashed and set aside the order dated 22.02.2003. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. The learned Judge was emphasised three different facts; firstly, according to the petitioner No.1, she was not willing to go with her husband, even if he were to take her lovingly to the matrimonial home. This statement has been given by her in her cross-examination. The learned Judge has misinterpreted this statement to mean that she is not willing to cohabit with her husband without any rhyme or reason. According to the learned counsel, this is misreading of the evidence as in her examination-in-chief she had clearly alleged that while she was staying with her husband and her in-laws, she was not only subjected to physical and mental cruelty, but even an attempt was made on her life. Therefore, since she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, obviously she was not willing to go back with her husband. However, the learned Judge has erred in not appreciating this evidence in proper perspective.