Smt. Uma vs Jitendra
2024 Latest Caselaw 5293 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Uma vs Jitendra on 21 February, 2024

Author: Prem Narayan Singh

Bench: Prem Narayan Singh

                                                             1
                            IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                  AT INDORE
                                                     BEFORE
                                    HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
                                           CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1662 of 2015

                           BETWEEN:-
                           SMT. UMA W/O JITENDRA TIWARI, AGED ABOUT 27
                           YEAR S, 226-B, MAHESH NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA
                           PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                           (SHRI PIYUSH SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                           PETITIONER ).

                           AND
                           1.    JITENDRA S/O RAMASHANKAR TIWARI, AGED
                                 ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE GRAM
                                 BHADSAD, P.S. BANKAT, TEH. BHATPARANI,
                                 DISTT. DEVARIYA (UTTAR PRADESH)

                           2.    RAMASHANKAR TIWARI S/O SURENDRA TIWARI,
                                 AGED ABOUT 60 YEAR S, OCCUPATION: GOVT.
                                 SERVICE GRAM BHADSAD, P.S. BANKAT, TEHSIL
                                 BHATPARANI, DISTRICT DEVARIYA (U.P.) (UTTAR
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENT


                                                        Reserved on : 06.02.2024
                                                      Pronounced on :21.02.2024

                                 These criminal revisions having been heard and reserved for orders,
                           coming on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
                                                              ORDER

This criminal revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.12.2013, passed by the learned ASJ, Indore in Cr.A No.257/2013, modifying the judgment dated

15.03.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 35/2011.

2. None present for the respondent though served hence, the matter has been heard and decided ex-parte.

3 . Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married with the respondent no.1 on 05.08.2008 at Arya Samaj Mandir and started living with the respondent no.1. One baby girl has been born out of their wed lock. Thereafter the respondent no.1 went to his parental village for a training and after his returning back the in-laws people started visiting the petitioner and the respondent no.1. It is also alleged that they started demanding dowry and on

not being fulfilled they also started harassing the petitioner they also demanded her to get a flat her maternal house, otherwise the respondent no.1 will leave her and he will perform second marriage with some other lady. Respondent no.1 also started disputing with the petitioner on petty issues.

4. On 11.06.2011 the respondent no.1 did not return back from work and he switched off his mobile so also his family members mobile phone were also switched off. On suspicion when petitioner went to the house and opened her almirah she found that the clothes of the petitioner, marriage documents of Arya Samaj, photographs and her jewellery were missing. It is further alleged that the respondent no.1 also threatened to kill the minor daughter.

5. Learned trial Court after considering the evidence availableon record and submissions of both parties, directed the respondent no.1 to pay compensation of Rs.75000/- against the missing jewellery of the petitioner and ordered the respondent no.1 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/- each to the petitioner and her minor daughter. The order was challenged by the respondents before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court, after

considering the submissions of both parties rejected the appeal and affirmed the order of learned trial Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned appellate Court has committed error in not appreciating the evidence available on record. The respondent is liable to compensate the petitioner. Without considering all facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate Court has decided the appeal in favour of the respondents. Hence, counsel prays that the order of the learned Appellate Court may be set aside.

7. Heard the matter and perused the impugned order.

8. On perusal of the impugned order and on going through para No. 14 of the impugned order, it appears that there is no evidence on record regarding the ornaments as to from where it was purchased or from where she got the jewels, so also due to non availability the jewellery with the respondents trial Court directed the respondent no.1 to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- and ordered the respondent no.1 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.3000/- each to petitioner and her daughter. On being appeal, the appellate Court affirmed the order of the trial Court.

9.It is time honoured principle that in view of limited scope of revision, the concurrent findings of both the courts do not warrant to be interfered until findings of the Courts are perverse or against facts and circumstances of the

case. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the learned Appellate Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgement dated 26.12.2013. Accordingly, the petition having no merits, is hereby dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(PREM NARAYAN SINGH) JUDGE VD