VIDHYA Vs. JAGDISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Vidhya wife of respondent Jagdish having three children filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Anta for grant of maintenance for herself and for her three children. The trial Court after recording evidence of the parties and hearing both the sides vide order dt. 11.01.2005 granted maintenance to the three children but rejected the claim of maintenance of the petitioner. An unsuccessful revision filed by the petitioner came to be decided on 10.05.2005 by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran up holding the order of the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by both the orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial Court with the averments that she is the legally wedded wife of respondent Jagdish. Out of their wedlock three children were born. The respondent used to harass her on account of dowry demands and also belaboured her many times. Therefore, she started living with her father. It was also averred that the respondent is a public servant serving in RAC and drawing a handsome monthly salary. In his written reply, the respondent has denied the allegations and submitted that because of his serving in armed force it is not possible for him to keep the wife with him regularly. He denied the demand of dowry at the time of marriage and also about any cruelty and mental torture. However it was submitted that he is ready to keep the wife and children with him. From the side of the petitioner she appeared as AW. 1 and also examined two other witnesses namely Keshari Lal AW. 2 and Dhuli Lal AW. 3. From the side of the respondent, the respondent Jagdish appeared as DW. 1. During his examination respondent Jagdish produced two photographs.

(3.) The trial Court after recording evidence of parties and hearing both the sides allowed maintenance to the three children but rejected the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the two photographs produced by the respondent during his examination holding that she was living in adultery with another person.