DHIRENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. JUHI UPADHYAY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 18.04.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau in M.P. Case No. 96 of 2013 under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 7,500/ - per month to opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 in the present revision.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 125 (4) mandates that the wife who refuses to live with her husband should establish a sufficient cause and reason to reside separately. In the absence of sufficient cause or reason she is not entitled to any maintenance, whatsoever. Learned counsel has drawn attention to the deposition of O.P. No. 2, i.e., the mother of the O.P., and submitted that O.P. No. 2 has stated that the dowry was demanded in her presence and the petitioner had assaulted the O.P., but in cross -examination, she has stated that she has not remember the date when the dowry demand was made or when her daughter (O.P.) was assaulted. It is submitted that the O.P. No. 2 examined as P.W. 3, has deposed in her examination -in -chief that her husband tried to kill her and her minor daughter. That the petitioner had illicit relationship with his Bhabhi, due to which she was being tortured and had to undergo mental agony. However, in cross -examination, P.W. -3 (O.P.) had deposed that she does not remember the date when dowry demand was made or the date on which she was assaulted. P.W. -3 admitted that she did not lodge any case against the petitioner for assaulting her and for the dowry demand.

(3.) HEARD . On perusal of the impugned order and the material on record, it is necessary to state that reconciliation was attempted, at the instance and submission of the petitioner that he wants to settle the matter. Thus, keeping in view that matrimonial dispute should be resolved, hence, the grievances of the parties were heard. However, the O.P., stated that the petitioner has incessantly cast aspersion on her character and made allegation to the extent that she was having illicit relation with her brother namely, Akash Kumar. She stated that she tried to resume the conjugal life but she was repeatedly assaulted and abused by the petitioner. She expressed apprehension of physical harm at hands of the petitioner. Accordingly, the decision, relied upon by the petitioner, in the case of Sukro Devi (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.