Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1079 (MP)

Rinki (Smt. ) @ Jyoti v. Halke Ram Batham

2017-10-11

S.K.AWASTHI

body2017
ORDER 1. This revision application is directed against the order dated 17.2.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivpuri in Criminal MJC No. 133/2015, by which the application filed by the applicant for grant of maintenance under section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) has been dismissed. 2. The facts leading to filing of the instant revision application are that the marriage was solemnized between the applicant and non-applicant on 24.4.2001 as per Hindu rituals and customs. One daughter and one son were born out of the wedlock of applicant and non-applicant. The non-applicant is working as Peon in the Court. It was alleged that the non-applicant was posted at Shivpuri and Pohri Courts, during which he ill-treated and abandoned the applicant and threatened that he will seek divorce from the applicant and perform second marriage. On 23.4.2013 the applicant was dragged out from the matrimonial house by causing marpit by the non-applicant. Since then the applicant is living with her parents and she has not made any arrangement for her maintenance. The non-applicant made false allegation against her. The applicant has also pleaded that she is unable to maintain herself and, therefore, the application under section 125 of CrPC has been filed before the Family Court, Shivpuri in order to get maintenance. 3. The non-applicant opposed the application by contending that the applicant was living in adultery and she has performed second marriage with Vijay @ Dimpy Shrivastava in a temple without getting divorce from him. On 20.6.2013 when he was on duty, the applicant left his house without informing his family members. In this regard, he has lodged the report in Police Station Kolaras, district Shivpuri and on the basis of this report, Missing Case No. 20/2013 has been registered by the police and on 29.8.2013 the applicant was recovered by Kolaras Police. The police recorded her statement in which she stated that she has performed marriage with Vijay @ Dimpy Shrivastava and she does not wish to live with the non-applicant. In these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to get any maintenance from him. 4. The police recorded her statement in which she stated that she has performed marriage with Vijay @ Dimpy Shrivastava and she does not wish to live with the non-applicant. In these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to get any maintenance from him. 4. The application filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Family Court below on the ground that the applicant is living separately from the non-applicant without any sufficient reason and from the evidence produced by the non-applicant it appears that the applicant is living in adultery also, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance amount from the applicant. 5. The grounds canvassed by the applicant in the instant revision application are that the Court below committed error by dismissing the application under section 125 of CrPC in favour of non-applicant, as the applicant did not have enough means to maintain herself. The non-applicant has filed an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right, which was dismissed on 5.5.2015 on the ground that the non-applicant failed to prove that the applicant is living separately without any sufficient reason from the non-applicant. The non-applicant has made false and indecent allegation against her due to which she has lost her dignity. She was assaulted by the non-applicant and was dragged out of her matrimonial house, therefore, she is entitled to receive the maintenance amount. 6. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the applicant and the facts leading to filing of the instant case. 7. Applicant Rinki (AW1) deposed that on 23.4.2013 she was dragged out by the non-applicant from her matrimonial house, since then she is living in a rented house situated at Ludhawali, Shivpuri. The applicant has not made any arrangement for her maintenance. The non-applicant was to marry with other woman, therefore, he compelled her to leave his house. She is maintaining herself by doing the work of maiden. The non-applicant is working as Peon in the Court and he is getting Rs.15,000/- per month as salary, therefore, she is entitled to get Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance from the non-applicant. 8. Non-applicant Halke Ram (NAW1) stated in his examination-in-chief that on 26.6.2013 the applicant left his house and she is living with Dimpy @ Vijay Shrivastava. He has lodged the missing report of the applicant and police has recovered the applicant on 29.8.2013. 8. Non-applicant Halke Ram (NAW1) stated in his examination-in-chief that on 26.6.2013 the applicant left his house and she is living with Dimpy @ Vijay Shrivastava. He has lodged the missing report of the applicant and police has recovered the applicant on 29.8.2013. After that police recorded the statement of the applicant in which she has claimed that she has married with Vijay Shrivastava in the temple and she is living with him on her own accord. Although the applicant denied that she has given any such statement to the police, but the non-applicant has filed copy of the statement of the applicant recorded by the police in which she admitted that she does not wish to live with the non-applicant and she has performed marriage with Vijay Shrivastava. 9. Ramshree (NAW2), mother-in-law of the applicant, also deposed that when her son Halke Ram went to his duty then the applicant called Dimply Shrivastava in her house and she remained with Dimpy Shrivastava in the house and she left matrimonial house without informing the non-applicant. The applicant is not residing with Halke Ram since past three years and she stated before the police that she has performed marriage with Dimply Shrivastava. 10. Miss Lata Batham (NAW3), daughter of the applicant, has also supported the contention of her father and grandmother that Dimply uncle used to come to her house and her mother used to live with him in the room and the testimony of this witness could not be controverted in the cross-examination. Therefore, the reason mentioned by the non-applicant for not residing by the applicant with him cannot be disbelieved. 11. Learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in correct manner and found proved that the applicant is residing separately from the non-applicant without any sufficient reason, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance amount from the non-applicant. 12. In view of aforesaid analysis, I am of the opinion that this revision application has no substance and being devoid of merit is dismissed.