ORDER 1. This criminal revision has been filed under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act being aggrieved with the order passed by first Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in MJC No.447/14 on 5.12.2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on behalf of the applicants an application under section 125 of the CrPC alleging that after marriage of the applicant with the respondent on 6.5.2011, applicant No.2 was borne out of the said wedlock. It is stated that after marriage, respondent and his family members used to harass her for bringing less dowry. After birth of the daughter, atrocities were committed by respondent and his family members became intolerable. Applicant started residing at Ratlam in the house of her maternal aunt. Respondent told the applicant that he would come to bring her back, but he did not come. Parents of the applicant sent the applicant to her matrimonial home, but the behaviour of the respondent and his family members was not changed. On 2.3.2013, sister-in-law of the applicant gave beating and also thrown her daughter when she was suffering from pneumonia. It is further alleged that sister-in-law of the applicant also broke the mobile and gave beating to the applicant and turned out her. False report was lodged against the applicant and she was called to police station where respondent gave in writing to keep the applicant with him, but he did not come. Applicants are residing in their parents home and having no source of income. 3. In reply, respondent denied the allegations of harassment. It is stated that applicant No.1 quarelled with the respondent and insisted to go to her parents house every 10-15 days. Applicant No.1 also insisted that respondent should get his share in property and reside separately. Respondent has separated his father and brothers, but applicant No.1 was insisting to separate his mother, otherwise she would commit suicide. From 3.3.2013, applicant started residing with her parents. On account of death of grand mother of the applicant, respondent asked the applicant to go alone and after getting leave he would come, but applicant No.1 started quarelling with him and also threatened to commit suicide. Respondent has lodged the report that applicant No.1 went to Indore. From 3.3.2013, applicant started residing with her parents. On account of death of grand mother of the applicant, respondent asked the applicant to go alone and after getting leave he would come, but applicant No.1 started quarelling with him and also threatened to commit suicide. Respondent has lodged the report that applicant No.1 went to Indore. It is further stated that at Mahila Police Station, applicant No.1 was called, thereafter, applicant No.1 started residing with respondent, but on 3.3.2013, she went to Indore after quarreling with the respondent. Respondent has given notice, but no reply has been given. Applicant No.1 is doing private job, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application. After recording the evidence of applicant and respondent, learned trial Court dismissed the application holding that it is not proved that applicant is residing separately with sufficient reason. Being aggrieved, this petition has been preferred. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that learned trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting the application. Applicant and his witnesses have categorically stated that applicant No.1 was misbehaved and ill treated in the matrimonial home. Learned trial Court failed to consider that applicant has gone to live with respondent, but again she was ill treated. There is sufficient reason for residing separately. It is further stated that applicant has lost the job and now she has no source of income. Respondent has sufficient means. Hence, applicant is entitled to get maintenance. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that learned trial Court rightly held that applicant has sufficient reason to live separately. Hence, she is entitled to get maintenance. 6. Applicant has also filed an application I.A. No.1794/16 under Order 41 rule 27 r/w section 151 of the CPC, wherein it is stated that respondent has filed a petition for divorce, in which statement of respondent has been recorded and applicant has obtained the certified copy. The document is relevant for the just decision of the petition. It is prayed that certified copy of the statement be taken on record as additional evidence. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that in the divorce petition only the statement of respondent has been recorded. Statement of applicant has not been recorded so far. The document is relevant for the just decision of the petition. It is prayed that certified copy of the statement be taken on record as additional evidence. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that in the divorce petition only the statement of respondent has been recorded. Statement of applicant has not been recorded so far. Copy of the statement is not relevant to decide the present petition. Hence, prayed for its dismissal. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the record, it is evident that this petition has been filed against the order passed on 5.12.2014 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam on the application filed by the applicant under section 125 of the CrPC On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties, learned Family Court has dismissed the application. From the certified copy of Arjun Singh, it is evident that statement has been recorded on 2.11.2013 in a divorce petition much after the disposal of the petition under section 125 of the CrPC In the opinion of this Court, document is not at all relevant to decide the present petition. Hence, the application deserves to be dismissed.Consequently, the application (I.A. No.1794/16) is dismissed. 8. In the light of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record of the Family Court. As per the statement of Madhvi (AW-1), after birth of her daughter, her husband used to harass her saying that she has not given birth to a male child. On 2.3.2013, she was putting Patti over the forehead of her daughter because of fever. Her sister-in-law came and broke her mobile phone, gave beating to her and thrown her daughter. Thereafter, she went to her parents house. After some time, her parents sent her to the matrimonial home, but proper food was not provided to her. Atrocities were committed on her. Her daughter was suffering from Pneumonia, then she called her parents, but her sister-in-law misbehaved with her. Thereafter, husband, sister-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law used to harass her. On 2.3.2013, she went to her parents house, report was lodged against her, she was called at Mahila Thana where she agreed to live with her husband. Atrocities were committed on her. Her daughter was suffering from Pneumonia, then she called her parents, but her sister-in-law misbehaved with her. Thereafter, husband, sister-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law used to harass her. On 2.3.2013, she went to her parents house, report was lodged against her, she was called at Mahila Thana where she agreed to live with her husband. Her husband assured that he would took her from her matrimonial aunt within two days, but he did not come, then she came to Indore where she contacted her husband to took her back, but he did not come, then she sent a notice. She is residing with her parents for about one and half year. Kamal Singh (AW-2), who is the father of the applicant has stated that after giving birth to a female child, his daughter was harassed on account of dowry. His grand daughter was suffering from pneumonia, then his daughter and son-in-law came to Ratlam where treatment was given. Thereafter, his son-in-law did not took back his daughter since 2.3.2013. 9. Arjun (NAW/1) says that after marriage, Madhvi resided with him happily, but after some time she started quarelling with him. His brother and father started residing separately due to quarrel made by the applicant. In the year, 2012, grand mother of Madhvi died, then he asked Madhvi to go alone and after getting leave he would come, but Madhvi started quarelling with him, went to Indore, he lodged the report. Police issued notice and compromise took place. Madhvi came back and after 20 -25 days she again started quarreling with him and went to her parents house. After two days, she came with her parents and again quarrelled with him and gone to her parents house. Since then, she is residing with her parents. He further stated that documents Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 were written between him and his wife at the time of compromise. 10. It is pertinent to mention that no report has been lodged by Madhvi (AW-1) regarding ill-treatment by her husband and his family members. Had really she was externed from her matrimonial home after ill treating her, there was no reason not to lodge the report. In chief-examination, she has categorically stated that she has gone to her parents house on 2.3.2013 and the report was lodged against her by her husband. Had really she was externed from her matrimonial home after ill treating her, there was no reason not to lodge the report. In chief-examination, she has categorically stated that she has gone to her parents house on 2.3.2013 and the report was lodged against her by her husband. Kamal Singh (AW-2), who is the father of Madhvi admitted that he went to police station along with his daughter, but he has not stated that husband of Madhvi used to demand dowry. 11. Arjun (NAW/1) had denied that his sister gave beating to his wife and daughter, who was suffering from Pneumonia. He further denied that when parents of Madhvi came to home, then he turned out Madhvi and her daughter. He further denied that on 2.3.2013, he gave beating to Madhvi and turned out from his house. He further denied that he used to harass Madhvi in connection with demand of dowry and on account of it, Madhvi is residing with her parents. 12. Madhvi in para-4 has admitted that she had written the document Ex. D-1 and Ex.D-2 which bears her signatures marked as “A to A” and reads as under :- ß10 fnu ckn eEeh ikik ?kj ls pys tk,axsaA HkkHkh HkS;k esjs ?kj ugh vk,axsaA eEeh ikik vkidks /kedh ugh nsxsaA vkidh ftanxh cckZn djus eEeh ;k ikik dHkh /kedh ugh nsaxsaA vkids Åij etkd esa Hkh dHkh gkFk ugh pykmaxhA dHkh Hkh vkidks Q¡lkus dh ;k fdlh Hkh izdkj dh /kedh ugh nwaxhA eSa ?kj cspwaxkA nhnh dks ugh vkus nwaxkA eEeh dks Hkh ugh j[kwaxkA eSa ges'kk vkidk dguk ekuawxhA eSa vkils fcuk iwNs ?kj ls ugh tkmaxhA eSa vkidks dHkh ejus dh /kedh ;k Q¡lkus dh ckr ugh dgwaxhA vkSj vxj vkius ;s lc ugha fd;k fd;k rks eSa vkils ges'kk ds fy, viuh Nksjh ds lkFk vyx gks tkmaxhÞA 13. From the contents of the document Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2, statement of Arjun Singh is fully corroborated. Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 reveals that Madhvi used to compel her husband to separate his parents and also used to give threatening to commit suicide and falsely implicate her husband. 14. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that these documents Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 have been obtained after pressuring the applicant, but Madhvi nowhere in her statement stated that the aforesaid document got written by compelling her. 15. 14. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that these documents Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 have been obtained after pressuring the applicant, but Madhvi nowhere in her statement stated that the aforesaid document got written by compelling her. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the opinion of this Court, statement of Madhvi and her father does not inspire confidence of the Court. The statement of Arjun Singh finds corroboration from Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2. It is evident that applicant Madhvi is residing with her parents without any sufficient and justifiable reason and has left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground. 16. In such circumstances, in the light of the judgment passed by the apex Court in the matter of Deb Narayan Halder v Smt. Anushree Halder reported in [ AIR 2003 SC 3174 ], this Court is of the view that learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or impropriety in dismissing the application. This revision petition is bereft of merits and is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the petition (Criminal Revision No.1538/2014) stands dismissed. Pravin Kumar Bhatt for applicants; R.N. Patidar for respondent.