Shrimati Nisha vs Naval Kishore

Anil Sharma, J.—Arguments heard. This revision has been filed by the revisionist under sections 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 30th August, 2011 passed in Criminal Case No. 341/2010 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior, whereby petition filed by the revisionist for grant of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected on the ground that the revisionist is living separately without any reason, hence, she is not entitled for any maintenance.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. can be awarded to the wife even if she is living separately when there is sufficient reason for doing so. He has drawn attention of this Court to the fact that the revisionist has alleged that she was beaten by her husband in drunken condition and she was sent back to her parents house. The allegation of demand of dowry is also there.

In support of his contention, counsel for the revisionist has cited judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sirajmohmedkhan Janmohamadkhan Vs. Hafizunnisa Yasinkhan and Another, which relates to separate living of the wife on the ground of infidelity of the husband. Another judgment of the Orissa High Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist in the case of Pranabandhu Pal Alias Pagal Vs. Minati Moharana, which relates to voluntary dissociation by husband on the ground of infidelity of wife. Third judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the revisionist Dali Bai vs. Rajendra Singh, 2006 (II) MPWN 54 in which it has been held that the wife living separately from the husband on the ground of ill treatment for demand of dowry by her husband is a sufficient cause of separate living. Another judgment relied upon by the counsel for the revisionist is in the case of Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai,

From perusal of the record of the Family Court, it is clear that initially the revisionist has stated that she was married to the respondent four years back and for the last three years she is living in her parental house. She has alleged ill treatment by beating her, forcing her to get the house standing in the name of her father transferred in the name of her husband. However, in the cross examination, she has admitted that after the marriage she lived with her husband only for two days. Her father Balkishan (PW 2) has also admitted that the complainant had lived with her husband only for two days. There is no evidence that any effort was made by the revisionist to live with her husband.

The learned Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence that in a short period of two days when the revisionist lived with her husband, she has been ill treated by her husband. There is no report regarding beating by the revisionist against her husband and there is no efforts on her part to live with her husband which shows that the wife has left the house of her husband and is living separately from her husband without any reason. In such circumstances, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the revisionist are of no help to the revisionist in the present case. The learned Family Court is justified in dismissing the petition filed by the revisionist for maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The revision is therefore, dismissed.