PAPPU VERMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Criminal Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 1st May, 2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance in a proceeding under Section 125, Cr PC to the tune of Rs. 1,000/ - to his wife Babita Verma and Rs. 500/ - to his minor daughter Nayansee Kumari i.e. a total sum of Rs. 1,500/ - per month in Maintenance Case No. 53 of 2004 since the date of filing of the application.

(2.) THE brief fact of case, according to the petition, was that the petitioner was married to the opposite -party No. 2 according to Hindu rites and customs on 16.4.2000 and on consummation the opposite -party No. 3 was bom. It was alleged that after sometime, the petitioner brought his wife -opposite -party No. 2 to her parental home and left there uncared for about two years. Yet, he had been visiting there by putting pressure on her parents for fulfillment of his demand. It was alleged that he used to threaten that he would not take back his wife to his home unless articles as demanded be supplied to him and finding no way out the wife -opposite -party No. 2, ultimately, had to take recourse to the District Women Forum and with the assistance of such forum she could be able to go back to her matrimonial home where she lived peacefully only for a month but again her misery started. During her stay there when she became pregnant, her husband again brought her to her parental home where she delivered a female child. In view of persistent atrocities in connection with demand of articles the opposite -party No. 2 again took help of the District Women Forum and only then she could be able to return back to her matrimonial home in the Month of October 2003 but again she was brought to her parental home and left there.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was neither having betel shop nor was the owner of Auto Rickshaw, rather he was a cleaner in a Auto Rickshaw and from his service therein, he used to earn Rs. 25/ - per day and in such a meagre amount he was not even able to maintain himself, what to say about his wife and daughter. As a matter of fact, the opposite -party No. 2 never settled at her matrimonial home because of her high ambition and cruel behaviour with her in -laws. Since no demand of dowry was made at the time of marriage, therefore, subsequent demand of any other articles by the petitioner did not arise. The petitioner always expressed readiness and willingness to keep his wife and daughter with him but she flatly refused by casting various allegations against him.