--l^^ \.^--^-s,~^-^.'^^^-^-^-^--'^^'*^A^^^--^'^'^A/^-'^'lw.''^^/'^'^^'L"^' © Sjngle Beneh IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR Criminal Revision No. ^^'i bf2005 APPLICANT FNON-APPLICANT1 NON-APPLICANTS 'PLICANTS1 •^ ^ ^.ri^- ^'<"'^.&^^..-." i . ,A3v"<ate & tuo.a.^), )^ Al^dc Agrawal spn of Shri Govind D^ji Khajanelu, R/o Madhya R-adesh Electric Board, Near of Gadarwara, Gadarwara, Dist. Narsmgpur[M.P.] VERSUS 1 Smt. Kalpana Agrawal wife of Shn Alok Agrawal, Address Near Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Qffice, Gadarwara, Dist. Narsingpur.[M.P.] 2. Kiunari Ashika Agrawal DaughterofAlokAgrawal, [niiner] Aged abput^. 2.5 , years, Through: Natural |j| G^^ffi^ Mother-Smt. Kalpaiia Agrawal, Eresently Resident of Shri Baldau Prasad Agrawal, Near Panchmuldii Hanuman Mandir, Brahmaipara,Durg,Dist. Durg[C.G.] CRIMINAL REVISION UNDER SECTION 19(4] OF FAMBLYCOURTS AGT 1984 Being aggrieved dated 3.9.2005'^assed by Sfari H.R. Gurupanch^Second AdditKMial Chief^Eudge Family Court DurgC.G.'mM.J.C.No.360pf2005TbetweenSnrt.Kalpana Agrawal and an other Vers'^^^^Ag'aw^^lewi^ fhe application imder sectiori t23^fliere8y'(lircctmg Ifae ^pSicant no. 1 atRs.l,500/-andapplicaritno.2Rs.500/-pennoirifaas maintenaiice is wrong ahdlillegat henfce fhis revision on the followingfacts andgroifnds:- '•3K^ HI^COLfl^ORCMI^AI-TISSARt-IAT^BII.ASPUR SmgleBenchiHon'ble5hriBII^RAOSAHEB^^^^& Criinihal RifecisionSNo. 457'/2005 AS^.fAyoMlid . Vs.':::'. :. . '^ . : . Sint.KalpanttiAgpimiat.cind onother T^T PostforOrder: l^-o'r'c't Sd-/ DUip Rac Judge \, •:;;i^':"': IIBi ^L III niss^ 8:ai:'ll-»^!. »].:J' K^l HI6H COURTOF^HHATTISGARHATBILASPL^ Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri &ILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH, J. Criminal Revision No. 457/2005 Alok Agrawal Vs. Smt. Kalpana^grawal and another PRESENT: - Shri H.B.Agrawal, leamed Senior Advocate with ShriPonkaj Agrawat, learnedcounsel forthe applicant. • Shri Sudha Agrawal,learned counsel for thenon-appliconts. OR&ER (Delivered on 12.-05-2006) <r- • ' . . • .. . • ' . •'. • '..•••;•"'.'. ' . . . . This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 03-09-2005 possedbyShri H.R.Surupoinch, 2"d Additjongl Principal Judge, Family Coyrt-, Durg in M.J.C.Number-360/2005 whereby the mdintencOTce © Rs.1,500/- for the non-appljcantNo.l wife and fts.500/- for the non-applicant No.2 minor daughter was ordered to be paid from"the dateof order. 2. It is not disputed fhatthe o^ptiairrt Alok Agrawnlv^ married to the hon-applicouit No.1 telpana A9rawat jn the year 1999. Ku.Aashika Agrawal now aged about 6 years is •their minor daughter. It is not disputed that the non-applicont No.l had Ipdged a reportat Police Station-Mahila Thana, Durg on 15-07-2003 cgainst the applicomt cmd his brother anA parents on ttie dllegations of harassn^nton.xxccoyntofqdemandforctowry.Itisalsonotdiqiuted thott the applicant has initiated proceedings under Sec*ion-t3|of •the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolutionof marriagebefore •fhe Ad|di'Monal Districtjudge, fiadarwada. ;-i^ ^•^.^ ^K :^'^i'^'':^'^^sl .•U '•''.'- K'^".^;;^:?^3§^':'ii3 .WeSS'SR.'-W^ vs xs 'lfiBi-ili 3. At the very outset, it would be proper to mention that on 09- 05-2006 aneffortwasmade by the Court to reconcite the dispute between the parties since the oppliccint had repeatedty expressed his readiness and wiltingness to take the non-applicants to their matemal home to his house and to maintain them properly. However, non- ti, : :: . ' '. :' • cpplicant No.l was adamant in living'separately since she opprehended threatto her life at the handsbfhier mother-in-law. 4. Brief facts are -riiat the non-applicants filed cn apptication under 5ection-t25of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance on the ground that the applicant and his family members were Subjecting -the non- applieont No.l to cruetty physically<»swell as mentally on account of tt demand for dowry. In the year-2000 when the non-flpplicant No.l was ill, no proper treatment was given to her by the applicant,as a resylt of which brother of the non-appticant No.l brought the non- appliccmts to Durg. Thereafter, the non-applicants were living at &urg at the maternal home. After the treatmenf wos pver, theapplicant refused to take the non-applicants to their matrimonial home despite notice. The non-appticants were ready and willing to live with the applicant. The opplicont runs dmedical store and has an income of Rs.15,000/- per month therefrom. Maintenance ©Rs.3,000/- per month foreach non-applicantwasclaimed. V, 5. The applicant herein refutted the dllegations of non-applicantS in toto on the ground that thenon-applicdntjsto.l. hdd refysed t6 liye with -rtie applicant without'any sufficient cause. It was further. .I^W 3f[.y;<tiffil ^^f :aiss VSS a 18a, 4X)t|.t. pa/aid SPM 4.!'spuno>i6_aS3t)4. UQ "frOOZ-ZO'fiT uo+ay 3601^0^ npUjK ^.o g'p-uoi+oag ^apun uoj4.i.tad o a|y 04. 4.nq aMfowva^p .isij+o ou pot) i(.uo3!|ddo a^ '4.tu»j|ddo 3^). tj+iwt aAi| 04. •[•0(s| 4.uo3i|ddo-uou aij). ^o: |CsnjAi uoctf) •y(j"'i3 J.O S21-UOI+33S Japun uoi+oajiddo uo .j.o 6ui|!j. 3141. ^a+.I.B si|+uoui ^ PUD uDaX D 4.soui|o "s"! £OOZ~Z.O~SI uo' 6^nQ 'DUDIJJ^ 831)0(1 o|jt|Dyy +0 p36po| som ^oda^ auft. ssws 4.i|6not(^.ia4.p uo X|^oa|3 aiaw A.imop jo^ puotuap o j.o 4.uno33o uo yo^ .l.ui»i|cldD-uou aitj4. j.o 4.uauissi>d0t) j.o suoj4.D6a||o 3ij4. 4.otj<. papua+uos os|0 SDM 41 •4|a|An>das ®A!|04- pat.uDM pup 3(104 loiuouiid^iujsi^+o puoqsnt| jai| ltt!M 3A!l °^- 4.uo»4-ou pip atjs +041.1 pa|p3A3.i A|>n>3p •[•ON 4.in»!|ddo-uou 31.J4. Aq pa| aauapiAa 944. +04). punojB 31)4. uo 3j.w['°H 4.UD3!|ddD-uou at|+ 04. aououa+ujDUi j.o +ua46 31)4. 04. A|UO s4.uauin6>iD sitj auij.Uoo p|nom puo 4.UD3i|ddD 3141. ^o j34.L|6niip jouiui 'piwBjBy o>|it|SDV •n)| o+ -/O08"sy @ WUDuaj.uiDuu Gui+uojg 4-1003 A|jiuoj 81)4. j.o Cuipuij. aiy. u6nduij 4-ou p|now ai.) yovft. pauiu'qns 4.as4.no AOA ai|+ 4.0 SRL) 4.u«>i)ddo 344. ^oj. a4.D3QApv\iojU3s pau^i»| 'pMwCyg-i-iuijs •9 •S4.uo9!|ddo-uou aitt. ^oj. jssuno? 3i|4. Xq pauiurox9-ss<M3 aoM ot|M o+dng jou<n)| uaaAD.id ssssau+im puo j.^tuitj fo +iADpij-j,o im ps|j^. uiajat) 4.uo;>i|ddo at|j^ -g-^y SD pMpjCy piwo.id i)qD|p/\ jai)+.oj. jai) puo J-MV s!o ^•NS'Jia4 PSUIUIDXS j'o(si| 4.uo3i|ddD-uoy 341- pW ^irwy AIJUIDJ at|4. 3^0^.39 asuapiAapasnppo sai+jDd aij4. 44-pg •4.UD9j|ddo aij4. j.o AIJUIU^. 4.uio.r31)4.111 a3o|d ua>|04.SDij uOj4.!+jB(j •wo.^.yjavft. auioaui Auo aAi.iap 4.ou pip 4.uD3j|ddD 31^4. puo 4.uo3!|ddo 3141.J,o >iatj4.o^q japja »tj4. 04. pa6uo|3q a^p+.g |i»jpa^aiy. 'paAo|dui3un Buiaq 'auiowj j.o ao.inos oupDt) 4.11031) ddo 8141. 4.01)4. p3pua4.uo3 ^?iii ^it'i' ^:M ia: )B t:H. -ft-fH IEssss BS !;; :•{••.• • /• "••' ^ iiyfc: the impugned order so far as it retates to gront of maintenance Rs.1,500/- to-the non-opplicant No.l wife should be set aside. 7; On the otfier hand. Sm*. Sudha Agroiwat, leamect counSel for th& non-appticants sypported ^lie impugried Judgment while corrtendin9 that the non^plit^t No.1 (•lad^suffieient reason to refuse to live with hep husbgnd since she viw(Ssii'epeor^ clemand for dbwry evei'sirice her marriage. Ft- was argued that the report lodged by the non-applicant No.lon 15-07-2003 at Police Station-Moliila Thana, Durg bears testimony to the above fact. TTie applicont had sufficient medns to provide for her maintenance and thenon-appticantNo.lwasunabletomaintainherself. 8. Having considered rival submissions, I have peru%d the record. In COT opplication filed under Section-125 of Cf.P.C., the burden ties on the wife to prove that she has sufficient redson to refuse tp live with her husband. In the application fited under Section-125 of Cr.P.C.at para-5, the non-applieants admitted that while the non-applicdnt No.l was itl, h®i*elder- brother houj visited Sadcrwada and had brought the non-opplicdnts to &urg for proper treatment. The testimony of Vatlabh Prasad Agrawal also shows that on medical advice he had shifted -the non-applicont No.l from her matrimonial home to Ourg; It is thus not a case where 'the non- •vs.:.. . ;... . ... • -.•..i.' • ' appliamt No.l was thrownoutfff har matrimoniat home. In this regard, non-applicont No.t Smt; Kalapana Agrowal has admittedj in crbss examination that she woukil not take^any medicineat her matrimonial home. She also us^d to shoutoM her husbahd since he would not stoy^ '"'•<-• Bllliln.lM Hjili;,3iii:i.iH.i; KW:^W li!l. with her in the hospital af'the time of delivery, She also admitted that her mother-in-kiw ysed •h) stoiywith herat the hosprtal. In para- IQ.shealsoaclmitted-thattforZ toSdQyssheuSedtocohfineherself inside her room sihce her inS'ther-in-lcew woutd not [wmit her to enter the kitchen. In t)ara-t2. she atsq admitted that her mol+ier-in- faw had given her a gjolclen necfcktce. The above facts clearly lne9ate ^•'.'..' \. •'.' . • ^ •". ".. •: ' •'; the attegations pf ilt-tredtmenif?tof the non-appliccait No.1 fcy •the applicoritor his ftimily members. ii:i 9. No specific atlegatibns were made by the non-apptiamt in her testimony regarding the harassment by the appticant onaccount of a demand for dowry.Iri para-6, die ttdmitted thdt rio report was lodged with the police re9ardin9 harassmenf on account of a demand for dowry till she lived with her husband. A copy of report available on record also shows that the repori- was lodgedon 15-07-2003 i.e. almostd year cmd Tmonths after the application under Section-125 of Cr.P.C. was filed. It appears that the report was nothin9 but an afterthought. The non-oipplicant No.l further admitted in pdra-8 of her testinoony 1hat she was not willing to stcy with the family of •the opplicant and Wanted the appticant-to tive separately from his joint family. The above facts ctearly gp to show that the non-qapticant had after returning to her maternal home, no sufficient reason to refuse to tive with her husbomd. Thedddmant ottitudeof the non^aipplicant No.l during -the efforts of re^onciliafion by this Court alsp bears •testimony to the above fact. So far as the attitude of •riie|appli«mt is concerned, he had repeatedly sxpressed his readi^iess cmd willin9ness before this &uct to take •the non-opplicants with him and ^ to maintain them. So far ''<xs the petition for the dissolution of marriage filed by the appilicant is coneerned, he repeatBdlyexpressed his desire to withdraw the aune if •the hon-applicont No.l was wit ing to return andlive u»jth him. It is thus cl^ir -thnt -the rion-applicant No.l had, without sufficient cause refysec) "h> live with her husband i.e. the applicont. Therefore, under sub clause-4 of Section-125 of Cr.P.C., •the non-appliccmt No.l (.iiifas not entitted to receive any allowance from her husbahd for mairitenance of herself. In this view of the matt-er, the jmpugned order so far as it relates to grant of maintencnce @ Rs.1,500/- to the non-appljeant No.l, islidble to be setaside. Sajf'ish 10. In the result, this revision is partly allowed. The impugned u- • . . . • • • '•.••••'.:.•..•• order dated 03-^)9-2005 passed by the 2W1 Additiondl Principte Judge, Family Court, Durg, so farcs it relates to grant of maintenouice © 1,500/- per month to thenon-applicflait No.l from the r—'—~' ~'" • _ . date of order, js set aside. j /^ Sd-i'' Diiip Raosaheb Judge \v \, s- ^ '^i^. isi':