MAMTA Vs. LALIT KUMAR PANWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Smt. Mamta and Rakshit challenging the order dated May 28, 2008 passed by Judge Family Court Ajmer in Criminal Case No. 132 of 2002 whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner No. 1 was dismissed and the application of the petitioner No. 2 was partly allowed.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this revision petition are that the petitioners filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that the marriage between the petitioner No. 1 and respondent was solemnized on June 8, 1998 at Ajmer according to the Hindu Customs. With the cohabitation of the respondent she gave birth to a male child (petitioner No. 2). After one month of marriage the respondent and his family members started to commit cruelty and demanded dower of Rs. 50 thousands as cash and a Suzuki Motor cycle. When the demand was not fulfilled, they started to bear her and told that she does not deserve to their family. She was used as servant. When she was pregnant the respondent did not get her treatment and insulted by saying that the child is of some other. When her father came to her she was not allowed to meet and raised the demand of Rs. 50,000/ - for B.Ed, and a Suzuki Motorcycle, then her father showeid his inability and on December 4, 1998 she was taken by her father for first delivery and thereafter on March 6, 1999 she gave a birth to a son, and thereafter on April 17,1999 the respondent and his elder brother Jitendra Kumar came in a taxi and carried her to their house by telling that their mother is not well and she is admitted in Jodhpur and when she reached there she found that her mother in law was welt and they did it so that the petitioner cannot take any legal action against them. On October 24, 1999 the respondent thrown her out of the house. The petitioner filed a complaint under Sections 498A and 406 IPC which is still pending. It was stated that she does not know any work by which she can earn whereas the respondents is doing work of property dealer and earning Rs. 15 -20 thousands per months. He is also earning Rs. 4500 from a Petrol Pump and also getting Rs. 4000 from a cement agency. The petitioner prayed that she be allowed Rs. 2000 per month and Rs. 1500 for her son as compensation. The respondent filed reply to the application and admitted the factum of marriage but denied the other averments. The petitioners have filed a false case against him. The family members of the petitioners have threatened him to implicate in a false case. The petitioner herself is an educated lady and she earns Rs. 2000 per month from tuition and from tailoring Rs. 3000. The petitioner has deserted him and the reason of that is that his sister is not making compromise. The petitioners got examined two witnesses and the non -petitioner examined 10 witnesses. The Family Court after hearing both the parties held that the petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to any maintenance and his application was dismissed and Rs. 1000 as maintenance was allowed to petitioner No. 2. Aggrieved against this order this petition has been preferred.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgments passed by the Family Court. The Family Court has already directed for payment of Interim maintenance Rs. 700 per month pendentilite to the petitioner No. 1. The Family Court has rightly disallowed maintenance to the petitioner No. 1. The order passed by the Family Court Is Just and proper. I do not find any Illegality or infirmity In the order of the Family Court. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move another application for maintenance as and when the divorce case is decided and she Is not allowed any kind of maintenance. The revision petition thus stands disposed.