Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 248 (MP)

Virendra Kachwaha v. Geeta Kachwaha

2013-02-25

N.K.GUPTA

body2013
ORDER : N.K. Gupta, J. The applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 30.4.2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewa in M.J.C. No. 84/2010, whereby a maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- was granted to the respondent u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. The respondent has preferred an application u/s 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Family Court that her marriage took place with the applicant on 20.5.2005 but, she was not kept with comfort in the house of the applicant. She was being harassed for demand of dowry. She was assaulted by the applicant for several times. The applicant threw her from the staircase and, therefore, she sustained a fracture in her backbone. She was not taken to the hospital even. Her father took her to the hospital of Dr. Johri, where she was admitted and remained for 8 days. Thereafter, she was again taken to the house of the applicant but, the applicant continued to harass the respondent for demand of dowry. In August, 2008, she was sent to her parents' house with a demand of Rs. 1 lac. Thereafter, the applicant moved a search warrant with help of SDM, Kami and the respondent appeared before that Court and informed about the situation. The respondent had submitted that she was unable to maintain herself, whereas the applicant was working with his father in his business and he was earning more than 15,000/- per month and therefore, a maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month was demanded. 2. The applicant in his reply had denied the averments made in the application. On the contrary, it was submitted that the applicant tried to call the respondent, so that she could live with the applicant but, the respondent did not visit the house of the applicant. A search warrant was also initiated with help of SDM, Kami then, the respondent informed the SDM concerned that she wanted to reside with her parents. A false case of offence punishable u/s 498A of IPC is also registered, due to instigation of the respondent. The applicant has submitted that he and his family members are simply selling the vegetables on footpath and, therefore, he has no such income, so that a huge maintenance can be granted to the respondent. On 10.4.2009, one social panchayat was also called but, the respondent did not participate in the panchayat. The applicant has submitted that he and his family members are simply selling the vegetables on footpath and, therefore, he has no such income, so that a huge maintenance can be granted to the respondent. On 10.4.2009, one social panchayat was also called but, the respondent did not participate in the panchayat. Under such circumstances, there is no reasonable ground with the respondent, so that she could live separately and, therefore, she was not entitled for the maintenance. 3. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, granted a maintenance of Rs. 1,500/- to the respondent. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. The learned Counsel for the parties submitted according to their pleadings produced before the Family Court. The learned Counsel for the respondent has further added that the applicant is convicted for the offence u/s 498A of IPC. If the entire evidence is perused then, it would be apparent that the applicant is a healthy person and it is expected from him that he must have earning his wages atleast like an unskilled labour and, therefore, according to the collector rate, his income appears to be above Rs. 3,500. He is doing the work of brokerage and, therefore, his income is much more than of an unskilled labour. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court has found that the average income of the applicant was above Rs. 6,000/- and no mistake has been committed in assessing the income of the applicant. At present, father of the applicant is also alive, who is the person to look after his daughter and, therefore, the applicant is capable to give a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to the respondent. 6. The learned Principal Judge has also assessed the expenditure of the respondent in a proper manner. The respondent has not filed any revision against the impugned order and, therefore, it appears that she is satisfied with the maintenance of Rs. 1,500/-. 7. So far as the reason is concerned, by which the respondent is not living with the applicant, it is apparent that the respondent could prove that she was being harassed for demand of dowry. A search warrant was issued by SDM, Kami, due to application of the applicant and she was examined before the SDM concerned. 1,500/-. 7. So far as the reason is concerned, by which the respondent is not living with the applicant, it is apparent that the respondent could prove that she was being harassed for demand of dowry. A search warrant was issued by SDM, Kami, due to application of the applicant and she was examined before the SDM concerned. It is true that she wanted to reside with her parents but, she must have said about the behaviour of the applicant and, therefore, the copy of such statement was not submitted by the applicant before the Trial Court. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the respondent Geeta (P.W. 1), Gayatri (P.W. 2) and Shiv Kumar (P.W. 3) appears to be acceptable. By issuance of a search warrant, the applicant Virendra Kachwaha (D.W. 1) could not prove his conduct to be bona fide. Under such circumstances, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has rightly held that the respondent has a serious ground for not to reside with the applicant because she was being harassed by the applicant for demand of dowry, etc. Hence, the respondent was entitled to get the maintenance, without residing with the applicant. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewa did not commit any error in passing the order of maintenance in favour of the respondent. 8. The applicant could not establish any ground by which any interference can be done by this Court, by way of a revision, in the impugned order passed by the Family Court, Rewa and therefore, the revision filed by the applicant cannot be accepted. Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed. The order dated 30.4.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Rewa in MJC No. 84/2010 is hereby confirmed. A copy of the order be sent to the Trial Court along with its record for information.