Smt. Manvati Pandey vs Smt. Indira Chaturvedi

This revision has been filed u/S.19 (4) of Family Court Act r/w S.397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 31.03.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court- Indore in M.J.C. No.374/2014, whereby learned Judge of Family Court partly allowed the applicant''s application filed u/S.125 of Cr.P.C. for getting maintenance from non-applicant and directed the non-applicant to pay Rs.1,500/- per month each to respondent No.2 & 3 as maintenance but rejected the prayer of applicant No.1.

Brief facts of the case are that applicants filed the application u/S.125 of Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court-Indore averring that applicant No.1 is a legally wedded wife of nonapplicant and applicants No.2 & 3 are their minor children. Her marriage was solemnized with non-applicant on 29.04.2007. After marriage she lived with non applicant at her matrimonial house but behaviour of non-applicant was not good with her. He used to beat her after consuming liquor and demanded dowry and subjected her to cruelty. The in-laws of the applicant also used to torture her and demanded dowry. At the time of pregnancy of the applicant No.1 no proper treatment was given to her by non-applicant and his family members. On 07.07.2014, non-applicant left applicant no.1 along with her children at her parent''s house since then she has been living with her parents and is unable to maintain herself and her minor children while non-applicant is in a private job and earns Rs.50,000/- per month so he be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to applicants.

In his reply non-applicant denied all the allegations and averred that he and his family members never mis-behaved with the applicant no.1 and he never drank nor beated her and he did not leave her on her parental house while applicant herself left her matrimonial house and started living with her parents without any sufficient reason and is able to maintain herself. So she is not entitled to get maintenance from non applicant.

Learned trial Court after recording evidence of both the parties observing that applicant no.1 lived separately from non applicant without any sufficient reasons, so she is not entitled to get maintenance from non-applicant and rejected her prayer while allowed the prayer of applicants No.2 & 3 and directed the nonapplicant to pay maintenance Rs.1,500-/ per month to each of them. Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this criminal revision.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that from the evidence it is clearly proved that behaviour of non-applicant was not good with applicant no.1. He used to beat her after drinking and harassed her for dowry. Therefore, applicant No.1 was forced to live with her parents. Learned trial Court wrongly disbelieved applicant''s statement that behaviour of non-applicant was not good with her only on the ground that applicant No.1 had not lodged any report against non-applicant regarding his behaviour. Applicant No.1 is legally wedded wife of non-applicant and she has no source of income and has been living separately since two years along with her children while non-applicant earns Rs.50,000/- per months and he is having sufficient source of income. The learned Judge without appreciating these facts wrongly rejected the prayer of applicant No.1 for getting maintenance from non-applicant. Even learned Judge of family Court only awarded Rs.1,500/- per month each to non-applicant No.2 & 3 which is also in lower side looking to the inflation and growing daily needs of the applicant no.2 & 3.

On the other hand learned counsel of the non-applicant submitted that from the evidence it is clearly proved that applicant No.1 voluntary lived separately from non-applicant. So learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in rejecting prayer of applicant No.1 and looking to the income of non- applicant the amount of maintenance awarded to applicant No.2 & 3 is also just and proper.

This Court has gone through the record and arguments advanced by the learned counsel of both the parties. As far as trial Court''s finding that the applicant No.1 has no sufficient reason to live separately from non-applicant is concerned, although applicant No.1 deposed in her Examination-in-Chief that after marriage she lived with non-applicant but behaviour of non-applicant was not good with her, he used to beat and abused her and when she was pregnant and had left her at her parental house and on 07.04.2014 non-applicant again left her parental house since then she has been living with her parents. Her statement is also corroborated from the statement of Girdhari (PW.2). But applicant No.1 admitted in her cross examination that she lived with non-applicant for eight years. If the behavior of non-applicant was bad with her then why would she stayed with the non-applicant for eight years. Even in her cross examination, she accepted that she has been living with her parents for past two and a half years, in which for the first year nonapplicant also lived with her. If the behavior of non-applicant was not good with her then why she would permit non-applicant to live with her. She has also admitted that non-applicant filed a suit against her for restitution of conjugal rights in which she had refused to go with the non- applicant.

On the other hand non-applicant deposed that he kept applicant with care and never tortured her. When he lived with applicants in Indore the family members of applicant No.1 beat him and expelled him from the house. In this regard he had also lodged the report Ex.D/1 at Mahila Thana, Indore. So looking to these fact and circumstances of the case in the considered opinion of this Court Learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in arriving at the conclusion that applicant No.1 is living separately from the non applicant without any sufficient reason and that she is not entitled to get maintenance from the applicant.

As far as the question of the amount of maintenance provided to the applicants No.2 & 3 by the trial Court is concerned, although non-applicant deposed that he works as labourer and earns only Rs.100/- to 200/- per day but these days daily wage employee''s minimum wage is Rs.7 to 8 thousand per month. Learned trial Court also assumed non- applicant''s income to be Rs 10,000/- per month but awarded maintenance of only Rs 1500/- each to applicants No.2 and 3. Looking to the inflation and growing needs of non applicants No. 2 & 3 which is on lower side. Hence this revision is partly allowed.

It is directed that non-applicant pay Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to applicants No.2 & 3 each from the date of order of trial Court instead of Rs.1500/- as awarded by the trial Court. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.