Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 319 (MP)

Mithun Kumar v. Kavita Rav

2019-04-15

V.P.S.CHAUHAN

body2019
ORDER : Applicant filed this revision under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2018 passed in M.J.C.No.183/2017 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Sehore, whereby application filed by the respondent under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. has been allowed and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the respondent. 2. Facts giving rise to this petition, in short, are that respondent who was the applicant in MJC No.183/2017, filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. alleging therein that she got married with the applicant on 11.02.2017. After that she lived in her matrimonial house. At the time of marriage, her father provided Cooler, Washing Machine, T.V., Sofa Set, Dressing table, Almirah, Ceiling fan, Clothes and gold and silver articles to the applicant. The applicant is worked as a truck cleaner and used to consume liquor and also consume other substance for intoxication. Applicant pressurised the respondent for unnatural acts and on denying he beat the respondent and also imposed stigma on her character. On account of that she lived separate from the applicant. She further alleged that the applicant was not ready to keep her as his wife. He took her to the Court, Sehore and took sign on the document and left the prosecutrix at the house of her Nana (Hariprashad) and did not pay any penny for her maintenance. She has no means for maintaining herself. Hence, she filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from the applicant. 3. Applicant who was non-applicant in the MJC No.183/2017 denied all allegations made in the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. except the marriage and alleges further that on the date of first night, the respondent told that he is not her husband. She is in love with one-Sachin Ahirwar. Her marriage was solemnized forcibly without her consent. She is not willing to live with him and she wanted to marry with Sachin Ahirwar and prayed for taking divorce from her. She also filed an application before the In-charge of Police Station, Mahila Thana, where she categorically stated that she is not willing to live with the applicant because her marriage was against her consent. She left the applicant on his own volition. Therefore, prays to dismiss the application. 4. She also filed an application before the In-charge of Police Station, Mahila Thana, where she categorically stated that she is not willing to live with the applicant because her marriage was against her consent. She left the applicant on his own volition. Therefore, prays to dismiss the application. 4. Learned Family Court after recording the evidence of both the parties adjudicated the matter. Vide order dated 06.09.2018 allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed the applicant to pay Rs.4,000/- per month till 10th day of the every month otherwise he has to pay Rs.500/- extra for that month. 5. Being aggrieved by that order, applicant filed this petition on the ground that the learned Family Court has not appreciated the fact in proper perspective. Respondent in her statement categorically admitted the facts of her love affair with Sachin Ahirwar. Respondent is living with adultery and left the matrimonial house with her own volition. She is not ready to live with the applicant. As per Sub-section 4 of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., the respondent is not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband. Learned Family Court has erred in allowing the application filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 06.09.2018 for quashment of the order of maintenance. 6. Learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent submitted that she is married lady. She was harassed by the applicant. Applicant pressurized her for unnatural relation and unnatural acts and she before her marriage disclosed the fact that she was fallen in love with Sachin Ahirwar. After that applicant agreed to marry with her. She did not hide anything before her marriage. The applicant raised this ground to avoid liability to pay maintenance to the respondent and prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties. Record of MJC No.183/2017 of the Family Court has been received and perused. This application mainly pressed by the applicant on the point that the respondent is living in adultery and she willingly left the company of the applicant without any sufficient reason and not following conjugal relation with the applicant. 8. Perused the statements of both the parties recorded before the Family Court, Applicant Mithun admitted that he got married with the respondent on 11.02.2017. 8. Perused the statements of both the parties recorded before the Family Court, Applicant Mithun admitted that he got married with the respondent on 11.02.2017. He categorically stated that after marriage, in first night, respondent told him that she is not willing to keep sleep with him because her marriage was not with her consent and marriage was forcibly solemnized by her parents. She wanted to live with one Sachin Ahirwar. She repeated the same thing in the next morning to his parents. When this matter was reported to the parents of the respondent, they took her with them and assured that they will pursue this matter with her. After marriage, she did not develop the conjugal relationship with the applicant. After two months, she made complain before the Mahila Police Station, where she categorically stated that she was not willing to live with the applicant because her marriage solemnized forcibly by her parents. She is willing to live with Sachin Ahirwar. After that, he received call from her in-laws that she is not willing to live with him and prayed to divorce from the applicant with the consent of both the parties. Exhibit-D/4 agreement for divorce has been executed. After that she agreed to came with the applicant with a condition that he will divorce her at Sehore. Then both came down to Sehore and with the consent of respondent and her parents executed a divorce deed Ex.D/4 and after that another agreement executed between respondent and Sachin. 9. Respondent herein, Smt. Kavita in her statement, in para 4, stated that the applicant beat her and assaulted her. She made a call to police after that applicant and his brother pressurized her to take her complain back. At that time, she executed an agreement and after that executed deed of divorce. Since then she is living with her Nana. In her cross-examination, she admitted her signature on document Ex.D/1 and also admitted that on 18.04.2017, means after two months of the marriage, she stated before the Family Counseling Center that her marriage solemnized without her consent and she is willing to live with her lover and wish to take divorce from the applicant and also admitted signature on the document Ex.D/2. 10. Perused the document Ex.D/1 and D/2, D/1 is application dated 17.04.2017, in which applicant categorically mentioned that her marriage forcibly performed with the applicant without her consent. 10. Perused the document Ex.D/1 and D/2, D/1 is application dated 17.04.2017, in which applicant categorically mentioned that her marriage forcibly performed with the applicant without her consent. She is not willing to live with him. She wish to live with Sachin Ahirwar on 18.04.2017 Ex.D/2. She before the Family Counseling Center again reiterated the same thing. Respondent in para 11 admitted her signature on the document Ex.D/3. Perused the document Ex.D/3. It is joint affidavit signed by the applicant and respondent. This affidavit executed on 26.04.2017, in which she categorically agreed to maintain conjugal relation with the applicant and she will not talk to Sachin Ahirwar and she will not meet with him. Respondent in para 12 admitted that she signed on the document Ex.D/4. Perused the document Ex.D/4. This document executed on 29.05.2017, where she agreed to take divorce from the applicant and want to live separate from the applicant. This document notarized before the Notary in Bharatpur, Rajsthan. Respondent in para 14 admitted that she signed on the document Ex.D/5. Perused the document Ex.D/5, in this document she executed an agreement of divorce, where she categorically stated that she is not willing to live with the applicant and not willing to continue her relationship as husband and wife with the applicant. 11. There is sufficient facts on the record that before marriage the respondent was having a love affair relation with a person Sachin Ahirwar. She explained this thing to the applicant. After that her marriage solemnized with the applicant forcibly without her consent and after marriage within four months she categorically admitted before the Family Counseling Center and executed some document Exhibit-D/1 to Exhibit-D/5 mentioning therein that she is not willing to continue her marriage and relationship as husband and wife. 12. There is sufficient material on the record that she is not willing to live with the applicant. She is living seperate from the applicant without any sufficient cause. She also admitted that she is willing to live with Sachin Ahirwar to whom she knows before marriage and her family members are not willing to marry her with Sachin Ahirwar and forcibly married her with the applicant. 13. She is living seperate from the applicant without any sufficient cause. She also admitted that she is willing to live with Sachin Ahirwar to whom she knows before marriage and her family members are not willing to marry her with Sachin Ahirwar and forcibly married her with the applicant. 13. Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. reads as under… (4) No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent. 14. Considering the forgoing discussion and facts produced by both the parties, this Court is of firm view that there is sufficient material on record that respondent is living separate from the company of the applicant without any sufficient cause. As per sub-section (4) of the Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. if wife is living separate from the company of husband without any sufficient cause. She is not entitled for the maintenance. Learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. Respondent is not entitled to getting maintenance allowance. 15. The impugned order dated 06.09.2018, whereby learned Family Court has directed to pay Rs.4,000/- as maintenance allowance is set aside and application filed by the applicant under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. 16. No order as to costs.