Ramchandra Prajapati vs Ranjana Prajapati

N.K. Gupta, J.—The applicant has preferred the present revision being aggrieved with the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Second Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur in M.J.C. No.360/2007, whereby the respondent was granted with a maintenance of Rs.800/- per month.

The facts of the case, in short, are that, the respondent had lodged an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court that her marriage took place with the applicant and in that marriage, a cash of Rs.81,000/-, various articles and ornaments were given by her father during various ceremonies of marriage. She was kept with comfort for some days. Thereafter, the applicant and her family members started harassing her for dowry demand. They intended to get Criminal Revision No.228 of 2008 a sum of Rs.50,000/- and a motorcycle for the applicant. Ultimately, her ornaments were taken and she was sent to her father''s house on Dusshera. Thereafter, the applicant did not take any interest to take the respondent to his house. She pleaded about the income of the applicant and prayed for a maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month.

The applicant in his reply denied all the allegations and he has categorically pleaded that he moved an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Allahabad and a decree was passed against the respondent but, she did not come to reside with the applicant and therefore, she was the person, who unnecessarily left the house of the applicant. He denied the pleadings about his income and therefore, prayed that application may be dismissed.

After considering the evidence adduced by the parties, the First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court has partly accepted the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and granted a maintenance of Rs.800/- per month to the respondent.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The trial Court has granted a small sum of Rs.800/- per month as maintenance to the respondent and looking to the expenditure of the respondent, computation of - 2 - Criminal Revision No.228 of 2008 maintenance amount appears to be reasonable. It cannot be said that an exaggerated sum is computed by the trial Court. It is true that the respondent could not prove the income of the applicant but, it is established by Smt.Ranjana Prajapati and Ram Chandra Prajapati that the applicant was engaged in a job at Jabalpur with help of father of the respondent and therefore, at that time he was getting a sum of Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. The respondent did not state that he was unemployed. According to the respondent, the applicant took a job as a guard in one ATM at Allahabad and therefore, he took her to Allahabad. Such a fact was not denied by the applicant and therefore, if he had left such a job then, certainly, he would have accepted another job of similar salary or he is competent to earn such amount per month. It is not alleged by the applicant that he is ill or he is handicapped. He has passed the examination of Class-12th and he left the College when he was studying in B.Com First year. Under such circumstances, being a healthy person, he could earn his monthly salary @ wages of unskilled labourer fixed by the Collector and therefore, he had sufficient monthly income, so that he could pay maintenance of Rs.800/- to the respondent.

The only question which was pressed by the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent had no reasonable reason to claim maintenance without residing with - 3 - Criminal Revision No.228 of 2008 the applicant. The learned counsel for the applicant has pressed that the applicant got a decree of Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act from Family Court, Allahabad and still the respondent was not complying such decree and therefore, she was adamant not to reside with the applicant. Hence, she was not entitled to get maintenance from her husband. However, if such a decree was not considered by the trial Court then, it can be considered at present. On examination of that decree passed by the Family Court, Allahabad, there are 3 points which go against the applicant. Firstly, he had knowledge that the respondent and her father were residing at Jabalpur. Marriage of the applicant took place at Jabalpur with the respondent and still the applicant mentioned the address of the respondent and her father of village Sabha Mahewa, Post � Hathigawan, Tahsil � Kunda, Police Station � Hathigawan, District Pratapgarh. If a petition under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act is prosecuted against the respondent with address where she was not residing in those days then, it was nothing but, a misrepresentation to that Court. Secondly, if a wife having no source of income was residing at Jabalpur then, it was not possible for her to attend the Court at Allahabad unless her transportation charges were deposited before that Court and intimation of such deposit would have given to the respondent. It was not expected of the respondent that she - 4 - Criminal Revision No.228 of 2008 would have visited the distant Court of Allahabad, where she had no source of income. Thirdly, that it was an ex-parte decree granted by the Family Court, Allahabad and therefore, it is possible that the respondent had no knowledge about that decree and if the applicant got a decree in his favour then, he should have given a notice to the respondent and claimed that the decree be executed by supplying a copy of the decree and the judgment to the respondent but, it is not pleaded or proved that the applicant gave such a notice to the respondent after getting a decree of restitution of conjugal rights. Under such circumstances, if the applicant got a decree from Family Court, Allahabad then, in that case, the respondent did not have an opportunity to represent her case and therefore, by getting such an ex-parte decree, it cannot be said that the respondent was the person, who voluntarily left the house of the applicant and she was not entitled for any maintenance without living with the applicant.

On the other hand, the applicant had accepted that a criminal case of offence under Section 498-A of IPC was pending against him and his family members. He has accepted that his services were arranged by the father of the respondent at Jabalpur at two different places from time to time. Thereafter, when he went to Allahabad, initially the respondent went with him and after sometime, she went back - 5 - Criminal Revision No.228 of 2008 to her father''s house. The conduct of the respondent as depicted by the applicant himself indicates that the respondent was ready to reside with the applicant but, when the applicant resigned from his job at Allahabad then, certainly she was tortured for demand of some cash and to provided a motorcycle then, she had no option except to leave the house of the applicant.

If the applicant had resigned from the job at Allahabad then, he should have visited the house of the respondent after getting the new job or he would have assured the respondent that he or his family members would not demand for dowry or motorcycle from her in future. The applicant and his witnesses have stated that a Panchayat took place thereafter but, the respondent did not comply the verdict given by the Panchayat. However, no member of such Panchayat was examined before the trial Court, even no such suggestion was given to the respondent or her father in their cross-examination. If the applicant was interested to bring his wife to his house then, certainly, he would have given a notice of ex-parte decree passed by the Family Court, Allahabad to the respondent for its compliance. It appears that when the respondent left the house of the applicant, thereafter, the applicant did not take any care to bring her back. On the contrary, he took an ex-parte decree of Section 9 of Hindu - 6 - Criminal Revision No.228 of 2008 Marriage Act by misrepresentation and thereafter, he kept silent. Under such circumstances, the testimony of the respondent is believable that she was being tortured by the applicant for dowry demand and otherwise and therefore, she was bound to leave the house of the applicant. Hence, the respondent was competent to get the maintenance without living with the applicant.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that the trial Court has rightly found that the respondent was entitled to get the maintenance from the applicant. There is no illegality or perversity visible in the order passed by the Family Court, Jabalpur. There is no reason to make any interference in the impugned order. The revision filed by the applicant cannot be accepted and consequently, it is hereby dismissed with the cost. The applicant shall bear his own cost alongwith the cost of the respondent. Advocate fee be computed @ Rs.5,000/- for each of the parties. The respondent would be entitled to recover the cost of this proceedings alongwith maintenance before the trial Court.

Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance.