Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 628 (CHH)

G. Venkat Giri Rao v. Y. Meera Bai

2019-04-30

ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Arvind Singh Chandel, J. This revision has been preferred by the husband against the order dated 6.6.2015 passed by the Family Court, Durg in M.Cr.C. No.419 of 2014, whereby the Family Court has allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the Respondent/wife and granted her monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. 2. Facts of the case, in short, are that marriage between the parties was solemnised at Bhilai on 11.10.2011. The Respondent/wife filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with averments that after the marriage she came to the house of the Applicant/husband on 13.10.2011. It was alleged by the wife that in the very first night after her marriage, the husband prepared her nude video and started her blackmailing by saying that he will upload the same on internet. It was also alleged that the husband and his family members tortured her for demand of dowry. It was pleaded by the wife that the husband had illicit relationship with her jethani (sister-in-law). It was further pleaded by the wife that the husband left her at his house since July, 2012 and he started residing separately. On 8.10.2012, she made a complaint in his office and asked him to live with her, but he refused. Finally, on 12.10.2012, he expelled her out of his house after beating her. Thereafter, she lodged a report in police station on the basis of which a case under Section 498A IPC is pending against him and his family members. She is unable to maintain herself. The husband works in Indian Railways as a Controller and gets monthly salary of Rs.70,000/-. In his reply, the Applicant/husband pleaded that in the first night itself after the marriage, the wife told him that she has a love affair with someone, her marriage with the Applicant was performed by her parents against her will and she does not like the Applicant. It was further pleaded by the Applicant that the wife also refused him to make physical relationship with her. No physical relationship has taken place between them. Since she has a love affair with someone and does not want to live with him, she started levelling false allegations against him and his family members. She had also come to his office and created hindrance in his official work. She is mentally torturing him. She has also levelled a false allegation on his character. Since she has a love affair with someone and does not want to live with him, she started levelling false allegations against him and his family members. She had also come to his office and created hindrance in his official work. She is mentally torturing him. She has also levelled a false allegation on his character. On the ground of cruelty by the wife, he preferred an application for divorce. Thereafter, the wife lodged a false report of demand of dowry. Since the wife is residing separately at her own will, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. 3. After recording evidence of both the parties and hearing arguments on their behalf, the Family Court, vide the impugned order dated 6.6.2015, allowed the application of the wife and granted her monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this revision by the husband. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/husband submitted that before the Family Court, father of the Respondent/wife himself has admitted the fact that in the very first night after the marriage, the Respondent/wife had told the Applicant/husband that she has a love affair with someone and she does not like the Applicant/husband. But, this fact has not been considered by the Family Court. It was further argued that the Family Court has also ignored the fact that first the husband filed an application for divorce on the ground of cruelty by the wife and thereafter the wife lodged the false report for offence under Section 498A IPC against the Applicant and his family members. It was also submitted that before the Family Court, the husband has categorically stated that his bhabhi (sister-in-law) is like his mother and after death of his mother she has nurtured him like her son and she is residing with his husband in other village at a distance of 40 kms. away from him. Therefore, the Family Court ought to have considered that the allegation on the character of the Applicant was false. Since the Respondent/wife has a love affair with someone, she does not like the Applicant/husband and she herself is residing separately from the Applicant at her own will, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. 5. None appeared for the Respondent/wife even when the matter was called out for hearing twice. 6. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/husband and perused the record with due care. 7. 5. None appeared for the Respondent/wife even when the matter was called out for hearing twice. 6. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant/husband and perused the record with due care. 7. It is not in dispute that marriage between the Applicant and the Respondent was solemnised on 11.10.2011 and the Respondent/wife is residing separately from the Applicant/husband since 12.10.2012. Before the Family Court, the wife examined herself and her father Y. Rama Rao. The husband examined himself and one C.H. Shriniwas in his favour. Both the husband and the wife deposed before the Family Court commensurate to their pleadings. Though the wife denied the suggestion about telling of her love affair with someone to the husband in the very first night after the marriage and her not liking to the husband, her father, during his cross-examination, in paragraph 3, has categorically admitted that it is true that his daughter/Respondent, in the very first night after her marriage, told her husband/Applicant that she has a love affair with someone and she does not like him. The wife has deposed before the Family Court that in the said first night, the husband prepared her nude video and threatened her that he will upload the same on internet. She has also deposed that after 3 days of the marriage, the husband asked her to put her signature on a blank paper telling her that he wants to give her divorce. These statements of the wife do not appear to be natural. It cannot be natural and reliable that a husband will prepare nude video of his wife in the very first night after the marriage and just after 3 days of the marriage he will ask her to sign a blank paper for giving her divorce. 8. The wife has also deposed before the Family Court that in the month of March, 2012, father of the Applicant and other family members did not give her food for 12 days. She has also deposed that the Applicant/husband has an illicit relationship with her jethani (bhabhi/sister-in-law of the Applicant) and after returning from the office he directly used to go to the room of her jethani. Contrary to this, the Applicant/husband has deposed that from 2007 to 2012, his brother and sister-in-law were living in other village Subbvaram at a distance of 40 kms. Contrary to this, the Applicant/husband has deposed that from 2007 to 2012, his brother and sister-in-law were living in other village Subbvaram at a distance of 40 kms. away from him and presently they are residing away from him at a distance of 17 kms. The husband has also deposed that at his house, only 3 members, i.e., he, his wife and his father were residing. C.H. Shriniwas, witness of the Applicant/husband, has also supported the above statements of the Applicant. The above statements of both these witnesses have not been rebutted during their cross-examination. Thus, it is also clear that the brother and sister-in-law of the Applicant were residing away from the Applicant in a different village since beginning and at the house of the Applicant, only the Applicant, his wife/Respondent and his father were residing. Therefore, the allegations of the wife that she was not given food for 12 days, the husband had illicit relationship with his sister-in-law and after his return from the office he directly used to go to the room of his sister-in-law do not appear to be reliable. 9. From the evidence on record, it is also clear that first the husband filed an application for divorce on the ground of cruelty by the wife and thereafter the report for demand of dowry was lodged by the wife. As pleaded and stated by the wife, she is residing separately from the husband since 12.10.2012. The written complaint (Ex.P1C) was filed by the wife in the police station on 12.1.2013. First Information Report (Ex.P2) was lodged on 13.3.2013 on the basis of which offence under Section 498A IPC was registered. When the wife was expelled out of the house of the husband on 12.10.2012 then why did she lodge the FIR for demand of dowry 5 months thereafter, has not been explained by her. Thus, the FIR of the wife lodged for offence under Section 498A IPC appears to be an after-thought. 10. From the evidence on record and the above discussion, it is clear that father of the wife/Respondent has admitted before the Family Court that in the very first night after the marriage, his daughter/Respondent had told her husband/Applicant that she has a love affair with someone and she does not like the Applicant. 10. From the evidence on record and the above discussion, it is clear that father of the wife/Respondent has admitted before the Family Court that in the very first night after the marriage, his daughter/Respondent had told her husband/Applicant that she has a love affair with someone and she does not like the Applicant. It is also not reliable that in the said very first night the husband would have prepared nude video of the wife and after 3 days of the marriage he would have asked her to sign a blank paper for giving her divorce. In March, 2012, she was not given food for 12 days, this statement of the wife is also not reliable. From the evidence on record, it is also established that the elder brother and sister-in-law of the Applicant were earlier residing in other village Subbvaram at a distance of 40 kms. away from the Applicant and thereafter they were residing in village Pendurti at a distance of 17 kms. away from the Applicant. Therefore, the allegation of the wife that the husband had illicit relationship with his sister-in-law and after return from his office he directly used to go to the room of the sister-in-law is false. 11. Considering the above facts and the evidence available on record, it is established that the Respondent/wife is residing separately from the Applicant/husband at her own will without any reasonable cause. Therefore, the wife is not entitled to get any maintenance from the husband. The finding of the Family Court is contrary to the evidence on record and law and, therefore, the same is set aside. 12. Consequently, the instant revision is allowed. 13. Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this order forthwith for information and necessary compliance.