Smt. Savitribai vs Dinesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17202 MP

                                                            1
                            IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                       BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                                  ON THE 16 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                            CRIMINAL REVISION No. 281 of 2015

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SMT. SAVITRIBAI W/O DINESH KAHAR, AGED ABOUT 25
                           YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL BAHADARI, TEH. AND DIST.
                           MANDSAUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                           .....PETITIONER
                           ( BY SHRI DHARMENDRA YADAV - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)

                           AND
                           DINESH S/O CHAMPALAL KAHAR BHOI, AGED ABOUT
                           30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS RAWALA GALI,
                           BHOIBADA TAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                           (BY SHRI RAMESH YADAV - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

                                 T h is revision coming on for order this day, t h e cou rt passed the
                           following:
                                                             ORDER

Heard finally.

2. Applicant has filed this revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mandsaur, District Mandsaur (M.P.) in Criminal MJC No. 417 of 2014, whereby an application preferred under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant has been dismissed.

3. The applicant - wife has filed an application under Section 125 of

Signature Not Verified Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Mandsaur stating that her marriage was Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 18-10-2023 17:11:41

solemnized with the non applicant - husband about 8 years ago and she was blessed with two children and they were living with the non-applicant. After some time of marriage, non applicant - husband and his family members persistently making demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- and started ill-treating her physically and mentally and the behavior of the non-applicant was also cruel towards her and under the compelling circumstances she was forced to live in her parental house. She is fully dependent upon her parents as she had no source of income and she is unable to maintain herself. Thereafter, she had filed an application for grant of maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam (M.P.). Her husband do have Restaurant as well as agricultural

land and also go for labour work whenever required and earn Rs. 10,000/- per month. Hence, she prayed that an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month be given to her towards maintenance.

4. Non applicant - husband opposed the same prayer by submitting that the applicant left his house without information alongwith all her clothes and ornaments on 18.01.2012 and without any sufficient reason she deserted him and also deprived her own children. The father of the applicant is a greedy person and used to demand money from him. The applicant also earn Rs. 7000/- per month by doing teaching work as well as labour work. The trial Court after considering all the evidence available on record reached to the conclusion that the applicant is voluntarily living separately from her husband without any cogent sufficient reason Hence, he prayed for rejection of application.

5. The trial Court after recording the evidence of both the parties dismissed the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant - wife Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 18-10-2023 17:11:41

by holding that applicant is voluntarily living separately from her husband. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, this criminal revision is filed.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that impugned order passed by the trial Court is against the law and facts. She is the wife of the non-applicant and, therefore, it is the duty of the non-applicant to provide her maintenance and prays for setting aside the impugned order as the impugned order passed by the trial Court is bad in law, hence, deserves to be set aside and applicant is entitled for grant of maintenance.

7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record of Court below.

8. It appears that the applicant Sawitribai (PW-1) herself admitted in her cross examination that her husband treated her in a proper manner and her mother-in-law also keep her as a daughter and helped her in every domestic work. Her husband filed an application before the Mahila Sulagha Kendra, but the matter could not be settled there. Non-applicant Dinesh categorically stated in his statement that his wife-applicant is living separately since last three years. He has also filed an application against the applicant under the Conjugal Rights before the Ratlam Court and copy of the judgment and decree are annexed as Exhibit-D-1 and Exhibit-D-2. Despite of the Court order, the applicant is not willing to reside with him. The applicant in her cross

examination at Paragraph No.10 do admitted that she is residing in her parental house, as per her own sweet will . It is clear that the competent trial Court has passed the Restoration of Conjugal Rights decree in favour of the non- applicant. The applicant did not filed any legal proceedings before the concerned Court for setting aside the decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights. If the applicant was willing to live with the non-applicant, she should have Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 18-10-2023 17:11:41

filed the petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for Restitution of Conjugal Rights against the non-applicant, but the same was not filed by her. Even she has not issued any notice informing the non-applicant that she is ready to live with him. Although, applicant submitted that non-applicant demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the form of dowry and mentally as well as physically harassed her but she did not make any complaint against the non-applicant. She never lodged F.I.R against the non-applicant for an offence under Section 498- A of the IPC, Domestic Violence Act or Demand of dowry.

9. The above statement of the applicant not appears to be just and proper to be bonafide or trust worthy. On complete analysis of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court has property appreciated the evidence available on record and rightly given a finding that the applicant is living separately in her parental house, without any sufficient cause, as per her own sweet will and, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

10. There is no perversity or illegality is committed by the trial Court while passing the impugned order, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the revision filed by the applicant - wife is hereby dismissed.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ANIL VERMA) JUDGE rashmi

Signature Not Verified Signed by: RASHMI PRASHANT Signing time: 18-10-2023 17:11:41