Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 302 (MP)

Praveen Yadav v. Kanchan Yadav

2014-03-14

N.K.GUPTA

body2014
ORDER : N.K. Gupta, J. By this criminal revision the applicant has preferred the present revision against the order dated 7.10.2011 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 29/2011 whereby the maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- was granted to the respondent. The brief facts of the case are that respondent had moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. that her marriage took place with the applicant on 20.6.2006 For one year she was kept with comfort, but thereafter the applicant and his family members started torturing the respondent. In may 2010 an accident of truck took place and therefore the respondent was blamed by the applicant and his family members that she brought a bad omen to the family. Also she was blamed for not providing any child to the family. In June 2010 there was a marriage ceremony of brother-in-law of the applicant in the family, but grand-mother of the respondent was sick, and therefore she went to her parents' house, hence she was not brought by the applicant. She was sick and huge amount was spent by her father of her treatment. She had pleaded that the applicant is a truck operator and also indulged in the business of hotel, and therefore maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month was demanded. 2. One the other hand, the applicant in his reply denied all the allegations. He has pleaded that the respondent was a quarrelsome woman, who was living with her parents without any reason. She came to attend the marriage of her brother-in-law for a small period, and thereafter she went back. Several efforts were made to bring the respondent, but she did not come. When a notice was given to her, then she had lodged a false FIR against the applicant and also filed an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. 3. After considering the pleadings of the parties and taking evidence of both the sides, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sagar framed as many as four points for determination and decided them in favour of the respondent and granted a maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. 2,000/- per month to the respondent from the date of order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. So far as the dependency of the respondent and amount of maintenance are concerned, the applicant could not show that he was not earning in a proper manner. Praveen Yadav (DW-1) has stated that he took some agricultural land on contract and he did not have any truck with him. The truck which was with him had already been sold in the year 2010. However, it is found that the applicant had a truck of his own and he was involved in the transport business, therefore if he sold a single truck, then it cannot be said that he was not doing his transport business. He has accepted that he was adopted by Govind Yadav; and Govind Yadav had a hotel. The applicant could not prove any document to show that the applicant took some land non contract for cultivation. Under such circumstances, the income of the applicant as told by the respondent Kanchan Yadav (PW-1) appears to be correct and the applicant was in a position to pay maintenance of Rs. 2,000/- per month for his wife. 6. Looking to the family status of the parties, it would be apparent that for a proper living, the wife requires a sum of Rs. 2,000-3,000/- per month as maintenance, and therefore the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Sagar has rightly found the dependency of the respondent and income of the applicant to assess the amount of maintenance. There is no reason to interfere in the amount of maintenance assessed by the trial Court. 7. The main contention as raised by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the respondent did not have any proper ground for not to live with the applicant-husband. There are so many allegations made by the respondent against the applicant. The behavior of the applicant with respondent can be assessed according to conduct of the parties. It is stated by Kanchan Yadav (PW-1) that she was being assaulted by the applicant and his family members. In May 2010 an accident of the truck took place and she was blamed for that accident. The behavior of the applicant with respondent can be assessed according to conduct of the parties. It is stated by Kanchan Yadav (PW-1) that she was being assaulted by the applicant and his family members. In May 2010 an accident of the truck took place and she was blamed for that accident. She had also said that at the time of marriage of her brother-in-law, her grand-mother was sick, and therefore she was taken to the house of her parents and thereafter she was not taken back. He statement was corroborated by her father Hariram (PW-2). On the contrary, the applicant Praveen Yadav (DW-1) denied all the allegations. 8. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, it appears that the respondent diverted the attention of the trial Court to the various documents relating to her treatment to show that she was sent to her parents' house in a bad condition and she could not regain her health though expensive treatment was done to her. If treatment papers Ex. A-1 to A-7 are perused, then it would be apparent that her treatment was started from 9.9.2010, whereas the respondent was taken to her parents' house in June 2010. No treatment paper has been submitted for the period June 2010 to September 2010, which indicates that when the respondent left the house of the applicant, she was healthy and not suffering from any illness. After perusal of such treatment papers, it appears that hemoglobin of the respondent was slightly less, but nothing abnormality found in those treatment papers. Hence, it cannot be said that due to behavior of the applicant, she fell ill or she was required with a heavy amount of the treatment etc. It appears that the respondent was not suffering from any chronic or other diseases which could be caused by mental tension or torture. Hence, the respondent diverted the attention of trial Court to the various grounds taken by her in not living with the applicant. 9. If the respondent was taken by her uncle etc. because her grandmother was sick, then certainly after recovery of her grand-mother she could be sent back to the house of the applicant, but no reason has been shown by the respondent that as to why she did not come back to the house of the applicant. 9. If the respondent was taken by her uncle etc. because her grandmother was sick, then certainly after recovery of her grand-mother she could be sent back to the house of the applicant, but no reason has been shown by the respondent that as to why she did not come back to the house of the applicant. According to Kanchan and Hariram as well as pleading done by the respondent, it would be apparent that the respondent was taken to her parents' house so that she could meet to her ailing grad-mother, whereas Jawahar (PW-3) has stated that mother of the applicant called him and told to take Kanchan to her parents' house with the direction that she would not brought back again. The testimony of the witness jawahar appears to be totally perverse than the fact stated by Kanchan and her father Hariram. If the behavior of the applicant as well as his family members was so bad and when the respondent was taken to her parents' house, then certainly an FIR could be lodged soon after that incident, but no such FIR was lodged in June 2010. Kanchan and Hariram have accepted that they received a notice u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It is also clear that notice was given by the applicant and thereafter a typed FIR Ex. A-8 was lodged by the respondent at Manila Police Station Sagar. If the typed FIR Ex. A-8 is perused, then it would be apparent that it was prepared in similar manner by which the application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. was prepared, and therefore the FIR was nothing but a drafted document by the learned counsel for the respondent to create a base for filing of the application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. 10. The respondent could not show any reason as to why the FIR could not be lodged in those eight months when she left the house of the applicant and it was lodged only three days prior to filing of the application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. If the respondent was tortured by the applicant and his family members, then there must be some caste panchayat or mediation by some one should have taken place in between them. It is nowhere proved that the respondent was ousted from the house of the applicant. It is nowhere proved that the respondent was ousted from the house of the applicant. On the contrary, it is pleaded that she went to her parents' house to meet her grandmother, and therefore thereafter she was excepted to come back to the house of the applicant. No reason could be shown as to why she did not come back to the house of the applicant. She refused that she attended to marriage of her brother-in-law. Hariram, father of the respondent had admitted that when the applicant moved an application u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and notice was received to the respondent, then thereafter a report was lodged and an application for maintenance was moved. The marriage of the respondent took place in the year 2006 and till June 2010 no steps were taken by the respondent or her parents against the applicant. 11. Narendra (PW-4) has stated that on 14.5.2011 he went to meet Kanchan at Bhojpura where she was serious. She sustained injuries in her hands and feet. She was in coma, and therefore Narendra and Hemesh took the respondent to the Police Station Cantt. and thereafter she was sent to Tily Hospital for treatment. Narendra who is cousin of the respondent told a very new story before the trial Court. When the maintenance application was moved in February 2011, then it was not possible for the applicant to go and assault the respondent so that she could be admitted in the hospital on 14.5.2011. It was not the case of the respondent that she was assaulted after her ouster from the house of the applicant. One contrary, looking to the treatment paper, it appears that from June 2010 to September 2010, there was no problem to the respondent. 12. Under such circumstances, looking to the testimony of the jawahar and Narendra, it appears that every witness wanted to created something in favour of the respondent in his own fashion. The pretext that the respondent was taken to see her grand-mother appears to be incorrect, because jawahar, who took her does not support the statements of Kanchan and Hariram. It appears that the respondent herself went away from the house of the applicant and she did not take any step till a notice u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was not received to her. It appears that the respondent herself went away from the house of the applicant and she did not take any step till a notice u/s 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was not received to her. It is not proved beyond doubt that she left the house of the applicant in June 2010. It appears that she was already residing in her parents' house prior to June 2010 and just to create evidence a fix month was given in the pleading. No treatment paper was filed relating to ailment of grand-mother of the respondent to show that her grand-mother was sick. It would be apparent that the respondent did not come back to the house of the applicant, even she did not come to attend the marriage of her brother-in-law. She left the house of the applicant with the pretext that she wanted to see her ailing grand-mother and thereafter she would have come back to the house of the applicant, but she did not come back. She took an advantage of the accident which a truck was damaged in May 2010, but it was possible that in May 2010 she was in her parents' house and she could know about the accident through the news given by someone. Under such circumstances, it was not proved beyond doubt that there was a cruel behavior of the applicant or his family members to towards the respondent or the respondent had any ground not to reside with the applicant. For grant of maintenance u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. it is necessary to prove that a reasonable ground is available to the wife so that she could not reside with her husband. But in this case, it would be apparent that the ground was created by some law knowing person and the respondent did not have any ground for not to live with her husband. Hence she was not entitled for any maintenance u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. 13. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that the order of the trial Court appears to be perverse and therefore it is a fit case in which an interference is required form the side of this Court in the present revision by quashing the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order dated 7.10.2011 passed by the learned Principal judge, Family Court, Sagar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 29/2011 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the impugned order dated 7.10.2011 passed by the learned Principal judge, Family Court, Sagar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 29/2011 is hereby set aside. Also the application filed by the respondent u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information.