1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH ; JABALPUR Cr.R.No. 1963/2010 Tej Singh Vs. Sribai For the Applicant : Shri R.S.Patel with Shri Jagdish Singrole, Advocates. For Respondent : None ORDER (oral) (08/11/2011) Per : U.C.Maheshwari J. The applicant/husband has filed this revision under section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C, being aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tikamgarh in MJC No.176/10 whereby allowing the respondent's application filed under section 125 of the Cr.P.C, the applicant has been directed to pay her the maintenance amount at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month from the date of the order. 2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the respondent herein filed the above mentioned application under section 125 of the Cr.P.C against the applicant contending that she got married with the applicant before 7-8 years in accordance with the Hindu rituals and rights. Subsequent to her marriage whenever she resided in the matrimonial home, she was always subjected to harassment and cruelty by the applicant and his family members, the mother, elder brother and sister-in-law. In such harassment and cruelty, she was subjected to beating. Besides this, she was asked by them to bring the motor-cycle and Rs.20,000/- cash from her parental home saying that without bringing the same they will not keep her in the matrimonial home. She was also subjected to 2 harassment because out of such wedlock, no issue was born. In such premises, after taking her all belongings before 8-9 months from the date of filing the application, she was ousted from her matrimonial home and thereafter no efforts were made by the applicant to bring her back from the parental family where she is residing under compulsion. She did not have any means for her livelihood while the applicant being agriculturist have 20 acres of irrigated land along with a tractor, is earning near about two lacs per annum. Besides this, he is also earning Rs.20,000/- per annum from the tractor. With these averments, the application is filed with a prayer to direct the applicant to pay her Rs.3000/- per month. 3. In reply of the applicant, by denying the averments of the aforesaid application, in addition it is stated that nothing was demanded by the applicant or his family members from the respondent. No harassment or cruelty was committed by any of the member of the applicant's family with the respondent. The applicant is having only 3-4 acres of agricultural land and, in such premises, he is not in a position to pay sum of the maintenance to the respondent. However, he is ready and willing to keep the respondent with him and afford all her expenses. With these averments prayer for dismissal of the application is made. 4. In view of the aforesaid pleadings, the parties were directed to adduce their respective evidence. On appreciation of the same, by holding that the respondent was subjected to harassment and cruelty in the family of the applicant and was also ousted without any sufficient cause from the matrimonial home and thereafter no effort was made by the applicant to bring her back from her parental family, the application was allowed. Pursuant to that, the applicant was directed to pay Rs.1500/- per month to the respondent as maintenance, on which, the applicant has come forward to this court with this revision. 5. Applicant's counsel after taking me through the pleadings and the evidence 3 recorded by the trial court along with the impugned order argued that at any point of time the applicant has never neglected or refused the respondent to keep with him and maintain her. In continuation, he said that on proper appreciation of the evidence, it is apparent that respondent was never ousted by the applicant or his family members from her matrimonial home. He also argued that the applicant has never perform the second marriage as stated by the trial court in the impugned order and in such premises, the alleged case initiated by the respondent against him and other family members, is based on false and fabricated ground. With these submissions, he said that there is no sufficient cause with the respondent in residing separately from the applicant and, in such premises, she is not entitled to get the amount of maintenance as ordered by the trial court and prayed for setting aside the impugned order and dismissing the respondent's application filed under section 125 of the Cr.P.C by allowing this revision. 6. I deem fit to mention here that even on calling the case in the second round, no one was present on behalf of the respondent either to respond the aforesaid argument or assist the court to adjudicate this revision. 7. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view his argument, I have carefully gone through the record of the trial court including the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties. It is apparent from the depositions of the respondent herself and her examined witnesses, namely, Sukha Lodhi (PW 2) the father of the respondent and Deshraj Lodhi, the brother of the respondent that whenever respondent resided in the matrimonial home with the applicant, during that period, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry. Besides this, she was also harassed and neglected because in so many years after marriage no issue was born from the wedlock of the applicant and the respondent. Considering the evidence, the trial court has also stated that some criminal case at 4 the instance of the respondent against the applicant and his family members is also pending. According to which, in the lifetime of the respondent, the applicant got married with some other girl, namely, Sunita D/o Anandi R/o Vijrawal. Apart this, it is also held by the trial court that respondent was ousted from the matrimonial home by the applicant and his family members and since then, under compulsion, she is residing with her parents and did not have sufficient means for her livelihood and, during this period, no effort was made on behalf of the applicant to bring her back to the matrimonial home. 8. The aforesaid findings of the trial court appears to be based on proper appreciation of the evidence led by the parties and, in such premises, the impugned order does not appear to be perverse or illegal on any count. Pursuant to it, I am of the considered view that the impugned order does not require any interference at this stage under the revisional jurisdiction of this court. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any merit in this revision. Consequently, by affirming the impugned order of the trial court, this revision is hereby dismissed. (U.C.Maheshwari) Judge MKL 5