 Smt. Gayatri Bai Kanwar v.  Dameshwar Kanwar

: Mr. Vivek Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Malay Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

05.02.2024 Order on Board

Heard Mr. Vivek Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent.

The present revision has been filed by the applicant with the following prayers: “It is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court be kindly be pleased to allow the revision petition, in the interest of justice.”

The applicant has filed this criminal revision against the order dated 2

28.07.2015 passed in MJC No. 235/2012 by the learned 2 nd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) whereby the learned 2nd Additional Principal Judge has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner under Section 124 of Cr.P.C.

The facts of the case, are that, the petitioner and respondent are wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on

24.05.2010 at village-Bharha according to Hindu rituals. The petitioner has filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance and case of the petitioner is that after 15 days of marriage, respondent has harassed her and also threatened that if she told about the incident to anyone, he would kill her and has also beaten her, thereafter, on 12.02.2011, community meeting has been solemnized regarding the incident but no action has been taken by the community. Further allegation is that the respondent always consume liquor and harassed her mentally and physically, therefore, she left her matrimonial house. There is no source of income of the petitioner and her parents are old age person and respondent has 6-7 acre 'land and all the family members are working as laborer and from all sources, he earns Rs. 300 to 400/- per day and Rs.10,000 to 12,000/- monthly and from the agricultural work, about Rs. 3,00,000/- is earned by the respondent, therefore, she is entitled for grant of Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance from the respondent. Further, the respondent has filed his reply and submitted that the petitioner resided only one week after the marriage at his home and also there is no physical relationship made between them and thereafter, she left his house with her own 3 will and she wants divorce. He further pleaded that he is a laborer and maintain his joint family and he is ready to take the petitioner with him and after recording the statement of witnesses, the learned Family Judge, Raipur has dismissed the application of the petitioner, hence the present revision.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Family Court has wrongly appreciated the evidence and held that the petitioner has left her matrimonial home with her own will. He later submits that the learned Family Court has failed to see that the respondent earns about Rs. 3,00,000/- per year from the agricultural work and Rs. 10,000 to 12,000/- per month and the independent witness A.W.-3, namely, Milauram has categorically stated that the respondent and his family members have harassed the petitioner, therefore, she left her matrimonial house. He further submits that learned trial Judge without going through the relevant evidence available on record, dismissed the application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., so finding of the learned trial judge erroneous and contrary to settle principle of law.

Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Family Court has rightly affirmed the order passed by the trial Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the Courts below.

From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that there is no 4 sufficient reason proved for the applicant to live separately from the non-applicant / respondent, therefore, she is not entitled to receive maintenance amount from the respondent. As a result of which, the application submitted by the applicant under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the finding recorded by the Family Court while affirming the order of the learned trial Court, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

Accordingly, the Criminal Revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary compliance and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Manpreet