HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Revision No.558 of 2007 APPLICANT: Smt. Malti Bai, wife of Surendra Kumar Chaure, aged 20 years, Caste Mochi, resident of Bamhanitola, Thana Lalbagh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus NON-APPLICANT: Surendra Kumar Chaure, son of Gulab Ram Chaure, aged 24 yrs., Resident of Demar, Post Demar, Tahsii Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) {Criminai revision under Section 19 (4) ofthe Family Courts Act, 1984} Present: Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.P. Sahu, Advocate for the respondent. Sinqie Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (23—2—201 0) 1. By this revision petition, the petitioner has chaiienged legality & propriety of the order dated 18-9-2007 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Rajnandgaon in Criminal M.J.C.No.59/2007 filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., whereby learned Judge, Family Court has dismissed the petition for grant of maintenance to the petitioner herein. 2. Legality of the order impugned is challenged on the ground that the Family Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested on it by dismissing the petition filed on behalf ofthe petitioner for maintenance. 3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal Of this revision petition are that parties are legally wedded spouses, they were residing together and after some time, according to the claim of the petitioner, the respondent started committing cruelty & torture upon the petitioner and compelled her to leave the house. Presently, the petitioner is residing in her maternal house and she is not able to maintain herself. The respondent who is having sufficient means is not maintaining the petitioner. On the aforesaid ground, maintenance has been claimed by the petitioner herein. It is also claimed that the respondent has performed second marriage, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for separate residence and maintenance. . The respondent has denied the allegations made in the petition for maintenance specifically relating to cruelty, torture and second marriage. . After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Family Court has dismissed the {petition on the ground that the petitioner is not having sufficient cause for living separately from her husband i.e. the respondent, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance only on the ground that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent. . l have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and record of the Family Court. . Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that in the present case, relationship is not disputed, the petitioner is residing separately from her husband in her maternal house and the respondent is not maintaining the petitioner. The petitioner has categorically stated in her evidence that the respondent has committed torture & cruelty ugon her and has married another woman. Factum of second marriage of the respondent has been well supported by the evidence of Tulsiram (AW-2), father of the petitioner, but the Family Court has not considered the same and thereby committed illegality. . On the other hand, Mr. P.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent, opposed the revision and submitted that according to the evidence of the petitioner and her father, the respondent has not committed any torture & bruelty, the petitioner herself had gone to .her materna! house, she agreed that she wiH come after regaining her health, but she did not come back, and the respondent has not married any other woman. in order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf ofthe parties, i have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties. 10. ln the present case, the petitioner has deposed in her evidence that the respondent used to commit cruelty in connection with demand of money and has deserted her. But in her cross-examination she has categorically admitted that she was residing with the respondent peacefully‘and during her illness, the respondent took her to hospital for treatment she herself had gone to her paternal house for taking rest and she told the respondent that when she Will regain her health she wtll come back to the house of the respondent. She has further deposed that the respondent told her that he will come to her paternal house to take her. She has not deposed anything about re—marriage in her examination-in-chief, but has deposed in para 28 of 'her cross- examination about remarriage of the respondent, however, she has not given the details of second marriage of the respondent. 11. Tulsiram (AW-2), father of the petitioner, has deposed in para 3 of his evidence that he has enquired the factum of delivery of Laxmi Bai, resident of village Dudhari, from Badhena hospital on which he came to know that the respondent has performed second marriage with Laxmi Bai, but he has not filed any document, though the doctor had assured him that whenever they will be summoned by the Court they will come with the documents. 12 .Despite this, the petitioner has not examined any doctor or any witness in support of the factum of second marriage. Virtually, the petitioner has mama mwe ; an w U a mm ’ ‘ neither specifically pleaded nor deposed about second marriage, her evidence clearly shcws that she herself was residing in her paternal house willfully and she herself has not come back to the house of the respondent to discharge her marital obligations. Instead of residing together with the respondent, the petitioner has filed petition for maintenance. The Family Court has rightly rejected the petition for maintenance. The Family Court ha no failed to exercise the jurisdiction sted o it or has not committed any illegality warranting interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 13.The revision i, therefore, liable to be dismissed and i is hereby s t dismissed. w s t ve n