w WQH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BiLASPUE ' CritRinai Revision No.124 of 20S7 Smt.Deepa Surajiya, agad about 31 yesrs, Wife of Shri Gajendra Surajiya, (Daughter of Shri Rambharos Chauhan); Resident of Warc! No.2 Kafihahari Para Bsmetara, DistriciDurg (C.G.) Ver. emetara, Tahsi! IMoQ-SBpticarit Gajendra Surajiya, ages about 38 ysars Son of Shrl Lalchand Surajiya, Occupat'on Government Teacher, Resident of B.T.I. Road, Near Normai $c"ooi Hoshangabad (M-P.) (Crlmsnal RsvisionjjndeFSectton 19(4) ofthe Famliy Courts Act) o (SHi i-son'ois ivir. s .p. SRarma, u.) Present: Mr.P.P.Sahu, counsel for the applicant. Ms Sunita Jain, counsei for ths non-appSteani. i on 23" 1. By this revision, the appilcant has chaitengea tegaiity and propriety of the order dated 1.8.2005 passed by ths Princjpai Judgs, Famiiy Court, Durg in M.J.C. No.229/2005, '.vheraby appiication fiied uncser Sectton 125 of the Coda of Crimtna! Procedure, 1973 or. behaif of the appiicant has bsen dismissed on the ;round that the applicant is resicing ssparateiy from her husband wlihout any just and reasoRable cause. 2. As per claim of the appijcant, partles ars Hlndus and isgaiiywecided spousss. Marriage so'!emnszed on 28.6.2003 and after jusi marriage ihs non-appiteant started committing torture and crueily. in the year 2003 her brother went io Hoshangabad and brought her to her maternai house, thereafter the non- appiicant dld not coms to her maternai houss for iaklng her and she is restding 'ner materna! house slnce 2003. She has tried to go Hoshangabad io iive with 'rier husband i.®.,non-appiicarst and he was not ready for the same. Thereafter notice was.issuec and finaiiy she has fiied appiication for maintenance. By fiiing rapiy the r^rs-appiicant has deriied the adysrsQ aiSegatiort and pieaded that he has never desertsd the appiicant, appiicant herseif is residing separatsiy, she Is fiving aduiterous isfe, she herseff has not iried IQ live wlth ihe non-appiteanf, fherefqre, shs'is not entified fer mainfenance. After providing an opportunity of '•h —2-- hsaring te the parties, isamed Principal Judge, Famiiy Court, Durg has ctismssseci the ciasm of maintenance fiieci on behaif of theappiicant. 3. ! ,-< have heard learned counse! for the parties, psrused the order impugned an< record of ths Famiiy Court. 4. Learned counss! for the appiicant submits that as per docunisntar/ evidence ths present appiteant •A'as having iiSlcit reiation with tA'o persons prior to her marriage but after her marriag®she has riot continued such reiation, therefore, ground of in aduitery 's.e., after marriage was not avaiiabie to the non-appiicant for denia! of maintenance. The non-appiicant has not proved ths fact thai tha appiteant is rssiding ssparatsiy vflfhout any just and rsasonabie cause. The non-appiicant was under ob'iigatlon to mair!iajn_the appiicant hs is not maintaining the appiscant. Fir.ding of ths Far^iiy Court reiating to ihe fact that the appilcant is ^ residing separatsiy with&ut any just and reasonabie causs is pe"»'srse. 5. On the other hand; iearned counsei for fhe non-appiicani opposes ths revistoR and submits that the Famiiy Court has righiiy rsjected the ciaim of maintsnance on the ground that the appiicant hersslf Is residing separateiy from 'ner husband •Aithout anv sust and reasonabie causs. 6. The preseni appiicant has sdmitted the ietters Exs.D/1 to D;10 thai she has written isttsrs which reveai that she '.vss havsng prevsous reiation v/ith tA'o persons. Aforesald ietters rsveai that the non-appiicant iiked her and he is gerstieman. Thsse iettsrs do not rsveai that ths non-appiscant has committed torturs and crueiiy upon fhs appiicant. 7. As per para 2 of evsdence of ths appiicant Despa, present non-appiicant has misbenaved with her whicn is aga!Rsti'documsntar/ svidence Exs.D/1 to D/10. She has dsposed in para-3 of her evidence that at the time of Rakshabandan in the ysar 2003 her brother wsnt to i-ioshangabacs and brought her after permtesson of the non-appiicant te her matema'. house for Rakshabandan, thereafter the non-appiicant cs'id not come for taking hsr to Hoshangabad. As per para 4 of hsr evidence she is rssiding in her parentai house since 2003. She has tried to go Hoshangabsd to iive v.";th her husband buf anyhow her husfcand was noi ready, sut fhte part of evidence does noi find support from ths aforesaid ietters writien by the appiicant. As per paras 3 and 4 of evidsnce of applicant Dsepa, h®rbrother has brought her to her parentsi house in the year 2003 for ceiebratsng Raakshabandan festivai after permissiori of fhe non-appllcant, thgi-eafter th®non-appiicant did not come to her parsntai house for iaking her to Hoshangabad. This evidence teelf te suffictent to sstabHsh that brother of the appiioant has brought her io-'her parentai house, she was under obligatlon to go 1 'f^s~':'-t'WS^t -Xi^ 'ft.,.. '*y^/ i:'is»-»J.na!^' (S) -s her raatrimorsiai house after csisbratton of Rakshabandan festivai but instead of golng to hsr matrimoniai hsuse she has waited that her husband v,vl come and take her. 8. !rs ths iight of conients of aforssaid iettsrs, hsr husband has not deserted her. Evidencs ofthis witnsss cieariy reveais thst after Rakshafaandan she hsrssif has not trisd to go to the houss ef the non-appiscant to dtecharge her maritai obiigation and hss fs'.ed appiication for maintenance mentioniRg the facis CQnfraty to the aforesasd ietters. 9. After appreciating the evidence avaiiabte on record, tearnsci Principai Judgs, Famsiy Court, Durg has rightiy dismsssed the daim of maintenance of ths appiicant. 'sO.Whne dtemissing the.ciaim ofitnaintenance, ths Famiiy Court has not committed any iiiegaiify warranting'lnterfefonce in exerciss of revisionai jurisdictSon. 11.Consequent!y, the revision bstng dsvoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hersby dism'issscs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge