Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1198 (MP)

Kalpana Raikwar v. Narmada Prasad Raikwar

2012-11-20

G.S.SOLANKI

body2012
ORDER : G.S. Solanki, J. This revision has been preferred by the applicant u/s 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order dated 4.3.2008 passed by Family Court, Sagar in Criminal Case No. 108/2006 whereby the application of the applicant filed u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance, has been dismissed. It is not in dispute that marriage of applicant and respondent was performed on 29.4.1994 and they have 3 children (two daughters and a son) out of this wedlock. It is also not in dispute that at present the applicant is living separately. 2. The applicant filed an application before Family Court, Sagar u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against the respondent inter alia pleading that after marriage the respondent committed atrocity on her in connection with the demand of dowry. It was also pleaded that the respondent has illicit relations with other ladies. The respondent deserted her and started living with one Rashida and thereafter performed marriage with one Mamta. It was pleaded that in the year 2005, the respondent deserted the applicant and demanded Rs. 1 lakh, since then, the applicant is living separately at her parental house. The respondent is working as Peon in the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board and getting the salary of Rs. 10,000 per month, therefore, the applicant prayed for grant of maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month. 3. Except the admitted facts, the respondent/husband denied all the content ions raised by the applicant and it was submitted that the applicant has illicit relations with one Sunil Choubey and is living with him. The respondent is maintaining their 3 children Richa, Shilpi and Saurav. The applicant herself deserted the house of the respondent without any sufficient cause as well as she is living in adultery, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. 4. The Family Court, Sagar on appreciation of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the applicant/wife has failed to prove that the respondent/husband committed cruelty on her and respondent has deserted her. The applicant herself is living in adultery, therefore, the application filed by the applicant u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance has been dismissed, hence this revision. 5. The applicant herself is living in adultery, therefore, the application filed by the applicant u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance has been dismissed, hence this revision. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the Trial Court has committed illegality in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in dismissing the application of the applicant for maintenance. The Trial Court has also committed illegality in comparing the signatures of applicant in Ex. D-1 and D-2 without calling the handwriting expert, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and maintenance of Rs. 3000 per month be granted to the applicant. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Dhannalal Vs. Dharamlal, (2004) 4 MPLJ 432 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and has submitted that the Trial Court has the power to compare the signatures of the applicant between the documents placed on record. Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Raj Kumar Dubey @ Raju Vs. Smt. Rekha Dubey @ Gothal Bai, (2012) ILR (MP) 794, and Rinku @ Yatendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 3 JLJ 293 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length, gone through the record of the Trial Court and statements of the applicant and other witnesses. In my opinion, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the applicant has failed to prove the pleaded facts of the case and respondent has deserted her as well as committed cruelty on her in connection with demand of dowry. The Trial Court has also rightly held that the applicant has failed to prove that the respondent is living with another lady. It is true that the applicant has denied the suggestion that she had filed the applications Ex. D-1 and D-2 before the Court in connection with her paramour Sushil Choubey, but Trial Court compared the signatures of applicant with her admitted signatures on record and arrived at the conclusion that Exs. D-1 and D-2 have been filed by the applicant, which shows that she is living in adultery. 8. In the case of Dhanna Lal (supra), this Court considering the facts of the case observed that prudent course is to obtain opinion from the expert. D-1 and D-2 have been filed by the applicant, which shows that she is living in adultery. 8. In the case of Dhanna Lal (supra), this Court considering the facts of the case observed that prudent course is to obtain opinion from the expert. In that case the Trial Court on the basis of comparison of signatures and writing, discarded the statement of Dhannalal, Bhujbal, Parasram and Ramcharan in comparison with statement of opponent Dharamlal. In the instant case, the Trial, Court has compared only the signatures of the applicant with the signatures made by her in the Court itself. Further it is summary proceeding in which no elaborate evidence is required. Thus, in my opinion the Trial Court has not committed illegality in dismissing the application filed by the applicant for maintenance. Consequently, the revision being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.