Rama @ Manorama Shukla vs Ramakant

N.K. Gupta, J.—The applicant has moved the present application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 2.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Judge to the Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara District Narsinghpur in Criminal Revisions No. 18/2008 and 38/2008, whereby the order dated 5.1.2008 passed by the learned JMFC Gadarwara in MJC No. 159/2007 was set aside by which the maintenance of Rs. 600/- was granted to the applicant. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant is the wife of the respondent, who moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court with the pretext that her marriage took place on 10.5.2001, but she was being harassed for dowry demand etc. The respondent and his relatives were pressurizing her to bring a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, a refrigerator etc. On 20.3.2005 the respondent and his relatives poured kerosene upon the applicant to set her on fire, however she could escape and went to one Badri Prasad (PW-2) and thereafter she intimated her brother Pradeep, who took her. An FIR was lodged at Police Station Gadarwara by her brother Pradeep, but nothing was done by the police. The applicant moved an application u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance of Rs. 2000/-.

The respondent in his reply denied all the allegations made by the applicant, specifically the incident which took place on 20.3.2005. It was pleaded that the applicant came to the house of her husband by keeping her ornaments with her parents. When she was enquired about the ornaments, then the applicant started quarreling. The applicant is a quarrelsome woman, who left the house of her husband without any reason. The matter was referred to the Panchayat for three times, but the applicant could not improve her conduct. The applicant is an affectionate daughter of her parents and she was not happy with the respondent, who was a poor person. Under such circumstances, it was prayed that the application filed by the applicant u/s 125 of Cr.P.C. may be dismissed.

The learned JMFC vide order dated 5.1.2008 after considering the evidence adduced by the parties granted maintenance of Rs. 600/- per month to the applicant, but the Revisionary Court vide order dated 2.2.2009 set aside the order passed by the trial Court.

The trial Court as well as the Revisionary Court are of concurrent view relating to dependency of the applicant and the income of the respondent, and therefore there is no need to interfere in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below. Only question remains before this Court as to whether the applicant could get maintenance without residing with the respondent. Before the trial Court the applicant examined three witnesses namely Rama Shukla (PW-1), Badri Prasad (PW-2) and Pradeep (PW-3), whereas the respondent examined himself as DW-1 and his brother-in-law Ajay Khemariya (DW-2). Ajay Khemariya was closed relative of the respondent and he could tell a falsehood in his favour. Similarly, Pradeep (PW-3) is a brother of the applicant, and therefore he could tell in favour of the applicant. However, Badri Prasad (PW-2) has stated that the applicant went to his house and she informed that she was being assaulted by her husband and relatives, and therefore she left the house of the respondent. In the cross examination, he has accepted that from clothings of the applicant smell of kerosene was present. He did not attend any Panchayat but the incident which was stated by the applicant that the respondent and his relatives poured some kerosene upon the applicant to set her on fire appears to be correct. From the testimony of Badri Prasad, it is nowhere established that the witness Badri Prasad was nowhere interested with the applicant or her family. Under such circumstances, the testimony of Badri Prasad may be considered as of an independent witness, and therefore by corroboration of Badri Prasad, it is proved that the respondent and his relatives poured some kerosene upon the applicant to set her on fire and she was liable to leave the house of her husband.

Ajay Khemariya (DW-2) has stated that the Panchayat took place for three times, but no compromise could be done, however in para 3 he has accepted that some of the Panchas have told the respondent to keep the applicant in a proper manner, which indicates that there was harassment to the applicant in the house of the respondent. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the applicant had sufficient reason not to live with her husband because her life was in danger in the house of the respondent. The learned JMFC has rightly held that the applicant was entitled to get maintenance without residing with the respondent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has set aside that order without any basis, and therefore the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge suffers from perversity, and therefore it cannot be maintained.

At present before this Court the applicant and the respondent were present. The applicant has stated that she is ready to live with the respondent, but the respondent has stated that since the applicant is a quarrelsome woman, therefore he is not ready to keep the applicant. It would be apparent that the conduct of the parties may not be discussed in detail, because in the present petition conclusions are to be drawn on the basis of the evidence adduced before the trial Court. However, it is apparent that the respondent is neither ready to take the applicant to his house nor ready to pay maintenance. He did not take any divorce from the applicant. Under such circumstances, he cannot be absolved from his liability to pay maintenance.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that now-a-days dearness is increased, and therefore a sum of Rs. 600/- is not a proper amount of the maintenance. However, at present conclusions are to be drawn from the evidence adduced before the trial Court. The applicant has ample opportunity to move an application u/s 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement of maintenance amount, and therefore it is not necessary at this stage to give any enhanced amount of maintenance to the applicant, because her dependency and income of the respondent was already assessed by both the Courts below and concurrent finding was given by them.

On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the present petition filed by the applicant u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. can be accepted. Consequently, it is hereby accepted. The impugned order dated 2.2.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara is hereby set aside and the order dated 5.1.2008 passed by the learned JMFC Gadarwara in MJC No. 159/2007 is hereby maintained. The respondent shall pay the maintenance according to the conditions of that order. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court as well as the Revisionary Court for information and compliance.