Kesawprasad vs State of M.P.

This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicant under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''CrPC'') against the order dated 09.07.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ashok Nagar in Criminal MJC No.231/2015 whereby application filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C has been allowed and present applicant is directed to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month towards the maintenance of respondent No.1.

Facts leading to filing of this revision petition are that the marriage of applicant and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 24.07.1997 as per muslim rituals & customs. The two sons namely Shahrukh Khan and Sallu Khan are born out of the wedlock of applicant and respondent No.1. According to the application filed by respondent No.1, the present applicant and his family members continuously made demand of dowry and harassed the applicant for nonfulfillment of the same due to which she was dragged out from her matrimonial house. Since then, respondent No.1 is residing with her parents and she has no means to maintain herself whereas the applicant is in possession of 28 begha irrigated agricultural land and he is earning five lakh rupees per annum. Accordingly, the prayer was made by respondent No.1 to direct the applicant to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance.

After hearing both the parties, the court below partly allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 towards maintenance.

Feeling aggrieved by fixation of maintenance amount, the applicant has filed this revision petition.

The grounds canvassed by learned counsel for the applicant in the instant revision petition are that the respondent No.1 is not entitled for any maintenance as she is residing separately out of her own will. He further submitted that the respondent No.1 left the house of applicant voluntarily and even after the willingness of applicant to keep her, she is not ready to come back and not willing to live with applicant. In such case, she is not entitled for maintenance. There is no evidence available on record that the applicant is an earning person and he is the owner of said agricultural land. The trial Court has not mentioned in the order about the earning of the applicant. The facts and evidence available on record indicates that respondent No.1 is capable to maintain herself.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 supported the reasoning given in the impugned order and submitted that the she was ill-treated by applicant, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this revision petition.

I have considered the contentions of rival parties and perused the record of trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the application of maintenance with respect to respondent No.1. The respondent No.1/wife stated in her examination in chief that the applicant and his family members were persistently making demand of dowry and they ill treated her. When the demand of dowry was not met out as their expectation, the applicant showed the door to her and since then she is residing with her parents and she has no source of income and she is depended on her parents.

In the cross-examination, she denied that she is living separately on her own will and her father has sufficient source of income. Applicant-Raju Khan stated in his examination in chief that behavior of respondent No.1 was cruel with his mother and children and for that reason she is residing separately. He also stated that even if respondent No.1 wants to live with him, he is not ready to keep her because her character is not good, but no suggestion is made in the cross examination of respondent No.1 about her character. Therefore, reason assigned by the applicant for not keeping the respondent No.1 with him is not acceptable.

The applicant has admitted that the respondent No.1 has no source of income. Although, father of respondent No.1, Rehman Khan stated in his cross examination that he is having 10 beghas of irrigated agricultural land and he is the owner of a tractor, but respondent No.1 stated in her examination in chief that they are 9 sisters and one brother. Therefore, the burden can not be imposed on the father of the respondent No.1 to maintain her. The applicant is the husband of the respondent No.1, hence, he is liable to maintain her wife. The respondent No.1 stated in her statement that the applicant is having 35 beghas of irrigated agricultural land by which he is earning Rs. 5 Lakh per annum, but she has not filed any document with respect to agricultural income of the applicant. The applicant stated that he is working as labour but he has not disclosed that how much he is earning from that work.

In these circumstances, it would be presumed that the applicant has sufficient source of income for his livelihood and he is able to maintain the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 submitted that her younger son is residing with her whereas elder son is residing with the applicant. In such circumstances, the trial Court has rightly directed the applicant to pay Rs. 7,000/- per month maintenance to the respondent No.1, therefore, no interference is called for in the revision and the revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.