Madhya Pradesh High Court
CRR/3404/2017 of SMT. RUBINA BEE Vs MOHAMMAD AARIF on 5 February 2024
COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHAT INDOREBEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLAON THE 5[th] OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3404 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
SMT. RUBINA BEE W/O MOHAMMAD AARIF MEV,AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORKH. NO. 36, VEDVYAS COLONY, P.S. DO BATTI, RATLAM(MADHYA PRADESH)
(SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA KAUSHAL - ADVOCATE)
.....PETITIONER
AND
MOHAMMAD AARIF S/O ANWAR MEV, AGED ABOUT 29YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESSMEVATI MOHALLA, NIMBAHEDA, DISTT. NIMBAHEDA
(RAJASTHAN)
(SHRI UPENDRA SINGH - ADVOCATE)
.....RESPONDENT
This revision coming on for orders this day, th e court passed the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present revision petition is filed under section 19(4) of the FamilyCourt Act read with section 397/401 of Cr.P.C challenging the order dated25.09.2017 passed by Family Court, Ratlam in Miscellaneous Criminal CaseNo.110/2016, by which the application of the petitioner for grant of maintenanceunder section 125 of Cr.P.C has been rejected.
2. The facts of the case are that the marriage (Nikah) between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 24.12.2014. It is alleged thatafter the marriage, the respondent started torturing the petitioner and also started beating her and therefore, she had gone to the house of her parents.
3. The trial court after appreciating the evidence, held that the petitioner,who was examined as PW-1 has stated in her statement that she came to herparent's house (Mayka) on 20.05.2015 and thereafter, she had gone to someother place. His brother Junaid lodged missing person report Exb.D/1 dated30.05.2015. The brother of the petitioner was examined as PW-2, who hasstated that he lodged a missing person report and the petitioner (her sister) had gone alongwith with one Sonu Tak and the aforesaid fact has also beenadmitted by petitioner PW/1 in para no.7 of her statement that after that sheappeared before the police station Shivgarh.
4. The trial court on evaluation of entire facts and evidence held thatsince the petitioner could not prove that she was forcibly ousted by therespondent from their house. On the contrary, it is proved that the petitionerrefuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason.
5. In view of the provision of sub-section 4 of section 125, wife who is living separately from her husband without any sufficient cause is not entitledfor maintenance. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the orderimpugned warranting any interference in the revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the present revision petition stands dismissed.
Sourabh
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE