3:eq' '<ii<4i«<<,8)Tflwi<o, Rcsiyy f^ <i_^ —...„.°<•-...:^-i-^o.l-S'^/66 ^Wv\t *<4lcb ""•""""""•"•••""•••"•••--—•-•••'•-•^ 200 sif^r 'WK (.'yS^^s') sii^r.qn Ri-ii'fi WI 3IR?I sbi)l<* ^WTC ^ffCT SII^F wu't\v ftSv gstuiifW, <f, Sm ch] V1S\ ni< Sli Sh Fl£ Prr 19-12-2007 yiin Ka]a Sliarma, L;oun; yiu-i i-Tateels Kliarma, Ad| '^. 'l'liis peUUon uiider yec1 the orcter dated 29til January, 54/2004 at the mstan.ee ot aj RCTisiou No. 138/2004 at the| Sardar wherebv icanied 8th Ai| ctismissed botli tlie revision vi| 2UU5 aD.cl uplieia Uie order ct; MagisU'ate f'u-st uiass, K4 inaintenaace ol miTior ctiiiaiti Diaintenaace to Uie preseat ap| y. . Learaed counsel tor Uie| rejectea tae apptication ot ttie mat slie is residuig separatel}' ^i<<[^i<i1*l iTPraf ^f f^sl" ^N^R ^sffipTan^r Cfiameli yardar, '^y Yr. w/o Htui slfcrsiiiRii SsTclQz'. C/o -Sliii Nsui Oop^l (iwas, Maia Road, Maaa Camp, Teh. & Rainiir UB i Chitraajan Sardar, 37 Yr. S/'o Late =?-N- SarH.'.iT' Rl^r-trir'i.-ari Rl->i1.Q-< fitf:lFt1 tlt, K/0 H. N0. 17-C Sec. 4, St. 31 PK 7pr Honsp. Rhflai'. nistt. nuro' I'CGl Sel tor tlie appiicant. rocate, tor Uie non-appiicant. lon 4»^ ol Cr.t^.C. ,is au-ectecl agauist 2005 passect in Cilmiaal Kevision No. lulicant ChaineU Sardar and Criininal uistauce ot non-appiicant diitraiijaii Lditional Sessious Judge, Kaipur has le common order ctated. 29m Jamiary, tecl ls>-t-'^UU4 passea by Uie Juaicial ipur aUowuig Uie appUcation tor •n aad rejecting fhe application for )licaiit-wife of fhe riou-appUcaat, appUcant siibiuits Uiat Uie tnal court 'ite ol me non-appticant wim a tmcluis <:ff herown free wiil as she does not w —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. "It' !iil?'k^ KMS^^-'s 3lrisi9il -f W SVSSS stilif •~T 3^^^rpn^T,g^m%, i«i<tiyy ® inwir •sw Wl. 200 an^?r •q3% v(1pf^?t) l®IIW^lft;l311^1 motlier waiit tQ reside with. t&6 mo| luiduig lias Deen subsequeil Hessioas Juclge wno nas al' drvorce ot eariier mEunaggj'l appUcaat caiinot ae couten-ep It was argued ftiat there regarauig me status ot Uie al admittect this tact tliat attetl appucant. 'l'liis aspect lias representulg ttie D.on-apptic< by leamed. couxisel tor me afl tliat siie'is resiauig separaq contraiy to Uie eviaence ava] amveu at E>y ignoruig Uie availaijle on record. 4. On fhe ouier hand, subniits fliat tnere is a con< tlie Coiuts 'oelow t&at uie just ancl siitticient .cazise ot 11| estaDlisti mat s&e was tortu] no uiterterence cau E>e recordecl bv bottl ttie (Jourts lt>elow. <iiwf<'t<il"< '<w<;jf if.fs'^ <f«i«!;i< ^ <nfiPl<Mi<t<il 3p.ier of fhe non-appiicaat and the above tlv coiitu-med. by uie leanied Aduitional io held that in the absence of proof of Iwitti liis lu-st wne Babita yai-aar, Uie wim t&e status ot iegally manied wite. B'as uo dispute before the Magistrate )pU.caiit as wile as flie uon-appncant lias ^divorcuT.g ms tu'st wite, lie manieq t&e ^iso not been clisputecl Dy tlie couiisel ^iit/husiiand. It was further contended ^Ucant that flie finduig ofthe taial Court tly withoiit just aiid sufficient caiise is liaDle on record aua Uie same lias Deen Bliatenal aocuiuentan7 aiid oral eviaence .eaniecl coiuisel tor Uie noii-appucaiit un-'ent tuicluig ol tact recoraed by boui .ppticaat is resicluig separately wiUioiit 'r own tree wui, slie nas not Oeen aDle to 'ea by ttie non-appUcaat tor clowiy and in^ae ui Uie coiicurrent tmclui B' ! i! 'feei '<<i<(i?»<i, aiTfly'is, Rio'ii'My ^INdl *t<l<* W^ 200 sn^CT ^ra^ (ipf^si^g) 2Bit?r.^rR;-fi^i WI3ICTF 3P1H? ^. \ ^iK-l=f)l<( ^t? gs?iT(5RT, ..^ 5. I nave liearu'leaniecl coulisel unpugnecl juctgm.ent as also available on record. ^ 6. T'he trial Coiirtf'has rei laaiiitenance witti aii observ sutticient caiise tor separate Ir allegauons ot tortui^ niade b Ujiiiito coniplaiat agam.st me non-ap examuied. any resident ot Ujliilj Uieretore, 'lier testiDiony is n( A.W. '2. Ajay Kao tias also Deeq Harpaaclt ot Maaa &as not De|i witness as &e accoinparuecl AJ lor settluig ttie m.atter ana tti^ coiTtu-iaecl bv tlle tn.al L'ouTt. applicaiit aiid lier witness, it ^; altegations ot tonure and crueB is eviclence availaDle on recoilt *<I Poiice Thana aiid. subsequentl] also ruacte an applicaUon tor proiaise ot. tfie non-applicanl| properly, she retumed to he) eiitled uito a coniproiaise. uq 4y»A read. wiUi Kectidu 34 ot| liusDanct aiict tus inomer wliiif. ^l^[^<i1l iTTq^f tf f^yl ^^K i?3ifim<n^r tor me parties. i liave perusea Uie Uie oial and docuinentary eviclence fcted ttie apptication ot me wite tor ^non ttiat s&e lias tailea to prove ^uig. 'I'Jie reasons tor uot believitig Uie tlie applicaat are Uiat slie clicl not Iplicant to lier neiglibouiers nor s&e lilbi to establish the fact of torture and t)t corroboiatecl Iroia omer evicleuce. a.isDelievect soleiy on Uie grouiicl Uiat •n examuiecl wlio could t>e unportaat |ay Rao when he went tQ Uie applicaat above tuiduig lias been suDsequeutly t'Toia perusal ol t&e stateiuent ot uie oGservecl t&at slie lias uiacle senous 'oeliavior lor aeiaana ot clown'. 'mere d that she lodged a report ia Mahiia to ^oUce Superuitenaent, Kaipur. yne iqamtenaiice ui me past, nowever on tlie that liencelbrQl lie would keep her niatnmonial lionie ana proceednigs lier report an oaence unaer Hection i.tJ.<J. Jias Deen registerecl against lier ;^t fi.as not Deen ctisputea Dy uie non- -FS/59—8/2007 —30.000. II ^eq' •<ii'iiTi?i<i,siTflu'i(o,Kiriwy ^Wvil *t||cb """""""""•"•"""•"""••••"••••"--••"^ 200 an^yr''ISRI) (i^if-|si<{ti) sn^i.^r f<;-fj«b (CTaiTOI sbll* \^ ./- nusEiaiicl aiicl ius mBUier wuc appjicaat. _ 'l. in a'Ri-pceedmg 'i^ider 4 fias uot Oeen clisputect by Uie non- .^i' ascettam necessarylor.me Uourt.TO wtiettier ttie wtte was gullty ot any reason. Kroceecluigs under contused witli t&e niatniiioniaJ nglit to claini niaiatenance un| wlio was nglit aucl wlio was wi Magistrate is tfutp bound to aw ttie wite is unable to iiiauitauil D~ut stiu neglects ,or reruses to not requirect to examuie wlietB) leavuig ttie liouse was just or n( ot leavuig Uie fiouse is wtiou^ concentTate ou uie tacts anct passmg oitler on appUcation 1U4 H... ,ln, tlie,.Bistailt case, ll-(t eoiiiplainaiit,"wis ciear Uiat sli^ otiUgation eveu aunng proceecl.; Her aUegations ot cruel De&avK witness as also troin tlie docul The reasoii assigned by t&e M^ |^liy=(si^ ^N *^u|l<rt*l, ^i^T<n4lT ^M<afTf f^yl Tf^re^H ^sifiitaii^r l-iec&on i'2!i ot uie (Jode, it is not as to w&o was in Uie wrong anu taving the inatrim.onial hoiise without tiecnon l'^t> ol me uode stio'ulct not 'oe proceeaings between me parties. A [ler Uie 'jocle is not d.epenclent upon sug ui me niau-uaonial clisputes. 'l'lie &ra inamteuance once it is loimd. tB.at lliersell and tier liusaaiia uas ineaas inauitam tiis wfle. 'l'fie Magistrate is ;r Uie conctuct ot Uie VvSe m. uutiaUy rt. The coD.duct of fhe wife at the tmie UTelevant antt me MagisU'ate DIUST •ircuinstances existing on tfae date ol ;d •ander S. 125 ofthe Code. in perusai ol me statenient ot uie was wiumg to cliscliarge fl.er conjugal uigs nnder Kecuon I'^s ot Uie code. >r and tort.ure tuicl support troin. tier uentarv' ericlence availabJ.e on recoiU. .gisn-ate tor clisDelievuig tlie appucant —FS/59— 8/2007 —30,000. -i-f #s»S, Sit B! ^' ^ 9s 3^q~'<iiiiw<i^ siTliu' |<B, Ri^l.My. ^'' '^;''^:?'^ WWT '**<(<*; WI. 200 sv^f iRra; (lyt-^iyr) 3)i^r.wi Ri-ti't) WtiaiRg sk*i ^CTWHftgsn^i <-y i>i«<[i'i«i1t*iw<ii" if^S <Fsi^i< ^3iRn3]i^r sfTRi^T ^t^r g^n?^r, J is Dasea 011 perver^.e appi^cianpn ot eviaence-avaUable OD. recora ana Uie sarae cannot be sustamed. y. lu view ot Uie lui-conu-o'vlertea eviaence availaKle on record Uiat the iiQn-appiicaat ttust?^nd is qir. tileetiiciaii in BliUai Steel l-'lant aau clrawing salan- at me rate <| Dotn uie Courts Delow wlieret] iaau.itenaB.ee has been rejecte( f 13,000/'- per niontli, and as the appUcant-wife is not able to BJiaiutam herself, the orders passed toy y Uie application ot ttie applicaat tor caruiot t>e sustamed aiid accorclmgly Uie same is set aside to mat etrtent. 'l'Ge non-appticaiit is du-ectea to pay Ks. 1,£>UU/- per inonUito uie mal ijourt. |fhe appUcant froin fhe date oforder of Sd/-~~ ,;, ", Dhirendra'MlisN'a 'Jud^eK^..''' ' V-.. —FS/59— 8/2007 —30.000. I: I!