Smt. Premwati Rajak vs Siyaram Rajak
2023 Latest Caselaw 10552 MP

                                                           1
                           IN      THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA
                                                ON THE 11 th OF JULY, 2023
                                          CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2756 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SMT. PREMWATI RAJAK W/O SHRI SIYARAM RAJAK,
                          AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE,
                          R/O. VILLAGE SIDHIKALA POLICE CHOUKI SASAN,
                          POLICE STATION WAIDHAN, DISTRICT SINGRAULI
                          (M.P.) CURRENT ADDRESS VILLAGE RAUHAL, POLCE
                          STATION SARAI, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
                          PRADESH).

                                                                                      .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI D.S. PARIHAR - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          SIYARAM RAJAK S/O SHRI RAMJANAM RAJAK, AGED
                          ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DRIVER, R/O. VILLAGE
                          SIDHIKALA POLICE STAION CHOUKI SASAN, POLICE
                          STATION WAIDHAN, DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
                          PRADESH).

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                          (NONE)

                                Reserved on     - 01.07.2023

                                Pronounced on - 11.07.2023

                                This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                            ORDER

In this criminal revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant has challenged the order passed on 08.07.2022 by the Principal Judge Family Court, Waidhan District Singrauli on 08.07.2022 in RCT Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI TIKARAM CHIKANE Signing time: 7/12/2023 10:56:52 AM

No.27/2021 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by which the order of maintenance of applicant was dismissed.

2. For deciding this revision petition the facts which are not in dispute are that the applicant is the wife of respondent and is living separately from him for the last many years. The couple has no child.

3. It was claimed by the applicant in her application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that she was married in the year 2010 and sometime thereafter she was subjected to harassment and cruelty. She came to know that the respondent was in illicit relationship with his sister in law and when the applicant objected to it, the respondent started abusing and assaulting her physically. He

also started demanding Rs.2,00,000/- in dowry and half share in the property of her father. The applicant is living in her parental house for the last 8 years and respondent has married another women. He is not providing any financial help to the applicant while she is not able to maintain herself. Her parents also being poor cannot support her financially. It was claimed that respondent was earning Rs.23,000/- per month, therefore, prayer was made that Rs.10,000/- be awarded as monthly maintenance to the applicant.

4. Opposing the maintenance application, the respondent has raised the ground that it is applicant who is not willing to live with the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2002 and they lived together till 2009. Even in this period, the applicant used to stay in her parental house for months together. She started making false allegations against the husband. She also had a false case of dowry harassment registered against the respondent in which the judgment of acquittal has been passed on 28.03.2017. The allegation about demand of dowry, cruelty, marrying another women and having illicit relationship are baseless. Applicant herself is an Asha worker and is capable to Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI TIKARAM CHIKANE Signing time: 7/12/2023 10:56:52 AM

maintain herself. Respondent works as a labour and earns Rs.6,000/- only per month. His mother is also dependent on him. Hence, it is prayed that the maintenance application be dismissed.

5. Two witnesses were examined by applicant and three by respondent. Exhibit D/1 was produced as sole documentary evidence. On appreciation of facts the learned Principal Judge of Family Court found it proved that applicant was not having any income to support herself and she was being neglected by the respondent but her allegations about cruelty and illicit relationship could not be substantiated. Based on these findings it was held that applicant was living separately without any sufficient reasons and accordingly her maintenance application was dismissed.

6. In this revision petition the grounds raised are that the impugned order suffers from illegality because it has failed to consider the facts and evidence in correct perspective. The applicant was living separately from husband because she was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment and the case under Section 498-A of IPC was registerd against the respondent and his family members. That fact alone was sufficient to entitle the applicant for adequate maintenance. Learned Court below has failed to acknowledge that no woman would live separately from her husband without there being sufficient reasons. The marriage of respondent with second woman was proved and their

Samagra ID is filed as Annexure A/2 in this revision petition. The trial Court ignored this fact that earlier interim maintenance was allowed in favour of the applicant. It is therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and maintenance be allowed in favour of applicant.

7. This revision petition was not opposed at the stage of arguments

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI TIKARAM CHIKANE Signing time: 7/12/2023 10:56:52 AM

because none appeared on behalf of respondent when the case was heard finally.

8. The arguments of applicant's counsel have been heard and the record is perused.

9. Learned Principal Judge Family Court has arrived at the finding under the impugned order that the applicant is the wife of respondent and she d o es not have any source to maintain herself. It is further held that the respondent is neglecting his duty to maintain the applicant. The maintainence application was rejected on the ground that applicant is living separately from her husband and she has not proved any justified reason for this separate living. Thus, this Revisional Court has only to examine whether the reasons assigned by the applicant for separate living were proved and whether they were sufficient to justify her refusal to live with respondent.

10. The application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by applicant before the Court below discloses that there were 2 reasons assigned for separate living. Firstly, she was being harassed for dowry demand and secondly, respondent was having illicit relationship with his female relative and later he married another woman. On both these counts, applicant has produced only oral evidence. She has examined herself and her mother as witness on these two grounds.

11. In rebuttal of these allegations respondent too has submitted oral evidence and additionally he has placed reliance on Ex. D/1 copy of a judgment passed on 28.03.2017 in RCT No.256/2020 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baidhain, District Singrauli. This judgment has decided the charge under Section 498-A IPC levelled against the respondent and his family members. After appreciation of evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Court has Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI TIKARAM CHIKANE Signing time: 7/12/2023 10:56:52 AM

held that the applicant, who was the complainant in that case had utterly failed to prove the allegation of dowry demand and harassment. Thus, respondent and his family members were acquitted of the charge under Section 498-A of IPC. It is nowhere claimed by the applicant that the said finding of acquittal was ever challenged by her before a superior Court. Thus, finding of acquittal has attained finality.

12. On the basis of the judgment of competent court regarding allegation of dowry demand and harassment, the oral evidence produced by the applicant on similar allegations could not be the subject of reconsideration and reappreciation. Learned Court below has rightly held in paragraph-19 of the impugned order that oral evidence submitted against the finding of Judicial Magistrate First Class Court are not worthy of credit. The applicant could not cite any legal ground to interfere in that finding of Court below.

13. The other allegation made by the applicant was that the respondent was involved in illicit relationship with his relative and later he married another woman. On both these allegations only oral evidence has been advanced by the applicant. Not a single instance was highlighted by the applicant during her statements which would suggest that she herself saw any unwarranted relationship of respondent and his relative. It is not pleaded by her either that she was informed of this relationship through any other person. The allegations are general in nature and do not refer to any specific incidence. Looking to the gravity of allegation, the applicant was supposed to be serious enough to support them by cogent evidence, but she could only make omnibus allegation and nothing more than that.

14. Basni (AW-2) is the mother of applicant and she too has failed to

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI TIKARAM CHIKANE Signing time: 7/12/2023 10:56:52 AM

make any specific allegation about immoral character of respondent. She has claimed that she personally saw the respondent in illicit relationship with his relative. Details of that incident are missing in the testimony of this witness as well. Therefore, this witness is also not found to be reliable for the reason of general nature of her statements regarding immorality imputed against respondent.

15. Applicant has produced Samagra ID as Annexure A/2 in this Court but no reason has been assigned why this document was not produced before the learned trial Court for examination and verification. No opportunity was provided there to respondent to challenge the validity of this document. No application has been made in this revision case for taking this documents as additional evidence. Accordingly, no cognizance of this document can be taken at this stage.

16. O n the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court reaches to the conclusion that finding given by learned Principal Judge Family Court regarding

absence of sufficient reason for separate living of applicant deserves no interference. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.

17. Let the record of Court below be sent back along with copy of this order.

(ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE RC

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI TIKARAM CHIKANE Signing time: 7/12/2023 10:56:52 AM