Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 446 (MP)

Sarwan v. Soorajbai

2018-05-02

ANJULI PALO

body2018
ORDER : ANJULI PALO, J. 1. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 30.5.2011 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad in Criminal Revision No.61/2010, whereby the revision preferred by the respondent against the order dated 11.1.2010 of the Court of JMFC (Smt. Deepali Sharma), Hoshangabad passed in Misc. Case No.124/2008 has been allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 1620/- per month to the respondent. 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent is the wife of the petitioner. Their marriage was solemnised on 20th April, 2007. A petition under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner on the ground that she was harassed by the petitioner and his brother for demand of dowry. The petitioner threatened her to perform a second marriage. There was no physical relationship between them. The petitioner ousted the respondent from her marital home. Thereafter, since 2008 the respondent is residing with her parents. She has no independent source of income. The petitioner has sufficient means to maintain the respondent and he is also competent. Therefore, she claimed Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance from the petitioner. 3. The lower Court disallowed the petition filed by the respondent under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 In Criminal Revision No.61/2010, the Additional Sessions Judge allowed her petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 1620/- per month to the respondent as maintenance allowance. 4. Since no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent to argue the matter therefore, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record. 5. It is not in dispute that the respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner. She has stated that in the year 2008, she came to her parents house for celebrating Holi festival. Thereafter, she resided with them. Petitioner/husband refused to live with her and he demanded a motor-cycle as dowry. Therefore, she filed a complaint against him vide Ex.P/1. 6. In cross-examination, the respondent has also stated that petitioner/husband harassed her just after the marriage. Hence, she filed a complaint at concerned Police Station against him. Thereafter, she resided with them. Petitioner/husband refused to live with her and he demanded a motor-cycle as dowry. Therefore, she filed a complaint against him vide Ex.P/1. 6. In cross-examination, the respondent has also stated that petitioner/husband harassed her just after the marriage. Hence, she filed a complaint at concerned Police Station against him. In paras 5 & 6, she strongly opposed the suggestion of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready to reside with her, but she refused to live with him without any just and proper reason. Similar version has been given by her father Sukhram. He has also stated that the respondent is unable to maintain herself. She had no independent source of income and she is depended on her parents. Petitioner refused to maintain her and he did not give any amount to her. Sitaram (PW-3) is an independent witness. He also supported the version of respondent and her father Sukhram. 7. The petitioner has deposed that his wife did not like him. Parents of the respondent took her to their house and on so many occasions, he wanted to bring his wife back but the respondent refused to live with the petitioner/husband. The respondent is not interested to live with the petitioner. Therefore, he filed an application (Ex.D/2) in Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra (Family Conciliation Centre) but respondent did not appear and she filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C., 1973 for maintenance. Petitioner has further stated that he is a labourer and the respondent was doing the same job. He did not put any question before his wife/respondent with regard to that, why she is not working as labourer with him and earned income. It is established that the respondent is not able to maintain herself and she has no independent source of income. 8. On the other hand, the petitioner is a healthy and able bodied person to earn. He has the legal and moral liability to maintain the respondent. This Court do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of the respondent that she refused to live with the petitioner. Similarly, I am of the view that the petitioner did not make any effort to bring back the respondent to his home. Hence, it appears that after filing the petition under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioner has made allegations against the respondent. Similarly, I am of the view that the petitioner did not make any effort to bring back the respondent to his home. Hence, it appears that after filing the petition under section 125 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 the petitioner has made allegations against the respondent. He wants to pay maintenance to his wife. 9. Normally a person for maintenance needs minimum Rs. 5000/- per month. Keeping in view, inflation and raise cost of living, therefore, Rs. 1620/- granted by the Court below is not on the higher side. This Court finds no ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Court below. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision has no merit. Accordingly, it is hereby dismissed.