Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 502 (MP)

Shashi Yadav v. Sachin Yadav

2013-04-12

N.K.Gupta

body2013
ORDER 1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni in Criminal Revision No. 169/11, whereby the maintenance order passed by the learned JMFC Seoni in MJC No. 138/2010 on 25.11.2011 was set aside. 2. Facts of the case, in short are that, the applicant was married with the respondent on 12.5.2009. On 29.9.2009 she was sent to the house of her mother. It is alleged that she was being tortured for dowry demand and therefore, her mother and brother were called at Lakhnadaun and thereafter, they took the applicant to Seoni for her treatment. When the respondent did not take the applicant back to his house, the applicant had moved an application under section 125 of CrPC before the trial Court after giving a legal notice. Thereafter, the respondent had moved an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned JMFC after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, granted a maintenance Rs. 1,000/- per month to the applicant but in the revision, the revisionary Court set aside that order. 3. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, it appears that the applicant left the house of her husband within 4½ months of her marriage. The applicant Smt. Shashi Yadav (PW1) has stated in para 4 of her statement that she remained with the respondent for 4½ months in continuation, whereas Smt. Asha Yadav (PW3) mother of the applicant has stated that the applicant came to her house for 2-3 times and she had sent her back to the house of the respondent after due consolation. However, near Dashahra when she was informed about harassment to the applicant, she brought her daughter at Seoni. The respondent did not take any care to take the applicant back. It is a material contradiction between the statements of Smt. Shashi Yadav and her mother. If the applicant remained with the respondent for 4½ months without any break then, how she could be sent for 2-3 times by her mother. The respondent did not take any care to take the applicant back. It is a material contradiction between the statements of Smt. Shashi Yadav and her mother. If the applicant remained with the respondent for 4½ months without any break then, how she could be sent for 2-3 times by her mother. If there was a complaint from the side of the applicant for two times prior to 29.9.2009 then, Smt. Asha Yadav did not say about the steps taken by her for the safety or security of her daughter and whether any Panchayat was called or any madiator was intimated about the harassment then, the respondent had accepted the applicant without any dowry etc. for two times. Such a conduct indicates that there was no such harassment to the applicant. The respondent took a plea that he and the applicant went to Seoni to attend the Dashahara festival and thereafter, the applicant refused to come back with the respondent. If the applicant was in trouble and she was taken by her mother and brother to Seoni then, an FIR must have been lodged before the concerned Police Station for harassment and a matter under section 498A of IPC must have been initiated against the respondent. If the applicant was interested in getting the maintenance so that she gave a notice to the respondent, then she was not scared about her relation with her husband and therefore, she could lodge an FIR for the harassment done by the respondent and his relatives. Under such circumstances, it appears that the fact of harassment was made by the applicant, her mother and brother. No independent witness has confirmed such allegations. Under such circumstances, where the applicant left the house of her husband within 4½ months then, naturally it cannot be said that she was being so harassed from the side of the respondent so that she could not reside with the respondent again. On the contrary, the respondent has moved an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in which the applicant remained absent and therefore, an ex-parte order was passed. Now she is appearing in that matter and she may go with the respondent in the matter, if she wishes so. 4. Under such circumstances, the applicant failed to prove any reason therefore, she could not get any maintenance by not living with her husband. Now she is appearing in that matter and she may go with the respondent in the matter, if she wishes so. 4. Under such circumstances, the applicant failed to prove any reason therefore, she could not get any maintenance by not living with her husband. The revisionary Court has rightly dismissed the application under section 125 of CrPC filed by the applicant. There is no illegality or perversity visible in the impugned order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni. There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the impugned order passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni. 5. Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant against the impugned order is hereby dismissed at motion stage. 6. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court as well as revisionary Court along with their records for information.