KAMRUN NESA BIBI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved of order dated 28.01.2015 passed in Cri. Misc. No. 75 of 2012 by which their application under section 125 Cr.P.C has been dismissed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Pakur has misconstrued the evidences brought on record and he has failed to take note of assault by her husband on petitioner no. 1.

(3.) Under section 125 Cr.P.C, a husband who has sufficient income if fails to maintain his wife and his children is liable to incur an order for maintenance. Under sub-section 4 to section 125 Cr.P.C, there are limitations provided under which a wife cannot seek an order for her maintenance. One of the conditions under sub-section 4 is that if a wife does not have reasonable excuse not to live in the company of her husband she cannot seek maintenance from her husband. In the proceeding of Criminal Misc. Case No. 75 of 2012, the witnesses examined by the petitioner no. 1 have deposed that the husband of the petitioner no. 1 on her insistence has purchased land at village-Farsa and constructed a house where both of them have lived. In her evidence in the court, the petitioner no. 1 who has been examined as P.W.1 admits these facts though she has stated that her husband has neglected to maintain her and their children. In their cross-examination, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, both, have stated that the petitioner no. 1 is living with her children in the house constructed by her husband at village-Farsa and P.W.3 has not supported the allegation of demand of Rs.25,000/- by the petitioner's husband.