Case: Amrita Singh Vs. Ratan Singh &amp; Another

2. Marriage between appellant and Respondent No. 1 was solemnized on February 17.2006. In May, 2007, one son was born out of this wedlock.Both the parties led their evidence, the trial court found that Respondent No. 1 is a railway employee and is getting a salary of Rs. 16,000/per month from the railway department. That fact is not in dispute. Keeping in view the aforesaid income of Respondent No. 1, the trial court awarded maintenance of Rs. 4,000/for the appellant and Rs. 4,000/for the child.4. Respondent No. 1 challenged the aforesaid order by filing criminal revision petition in the High Court and the High Court has allowed the said petition thereby quashing the order of the trial court granting maintenance. The reason given by the High Court is that the appellant has not made out any reasonable cause for not living with Respondent No. 1. Entire discussion on this aspect is contained in two paragraphs which are reproducedThe history of their marriage is that the petitioner submits that he was kidnapped for the purpose of marriage on a misconception that he was highly placed in the railway even though he belongs to parents, who come within the BPL category, and he himself was the 4th grade employee. Naturally, there was incompatibility between the spouses on account of wide economic difference between them. When the Opposite Party No. 2 left him, he filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights. Some kind of temporary arrangement was made at the behest of the Court but to no avail. In the meanwhile, the Opposite Party No. 2 filed a case under SectionIndian Penal Code in which he and his father were behind the bar for a long period.6. It appears that the Opposite Party No. 2 has not made out any reasonable cause for not living with the petition. In such circumstances, evidently the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should not have been allowed by the CourtFamily Court while dismissing the petition of Respondent No. 1 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, gave a categorical finding that it is Respondent No.who had treated the appellant with cruelty and she was ousted from the matrimonial home. Therefore, the appellant had reasonable apprehension in not joining back the company of her husband.

Reasoning:
5. Two aspects are mentioned in theportion, i.e., application of Respondent No. 1 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and filing of case by the appellant under Sectionof the Indian Penal Code. There is no discussion as to how the aforesaid two cases led to the conclusion that appellant did not have any reasonable cause for leaving Respondent No. 1. That apart, in any case it is abundantly clear from the record that the position that emerges from the aforesaid proceedings would blame Respondent No. 1 and not the appellant and the finding of the High Court is palpablyappeal against the judgment of the trial court was pending before the Appellate Court. It is for this reason she had lost trust in her husband as she feared that she would be tortured again if she goes back to her matrimonial house. In essence, she pleaded that there were valid reasons for not resuming the matrimonial alliance after she was thrown out of the house.y Court while dismissing the petition of Respondent No. 1 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, gave a categorical finding that it is Respondent No.o had treated the appellant with cruelty and she was ousted from the matrimonial home. Therefore, the appellant had reasonable apprehension in not joining back the company of her husband.Insofar as case under SectionIPC is concerned, as already pointed out above,and his family members have been convicted by Court ofJudicial Magistrate, Munger vide judgment dated July 09, 2013. No doubt, Respondent No. 1 and his family members have filed appeal there against, which is pending before the appellate court. Fact remains that as per the finding of the trial court, the allegations of appellant that there was a demand of dowry and she was subjected to cruelty at the hands of her husband, stands proved, as of now.