CRR/218/2019 of RAJESH Vs REKHA TIWARI on 5 February 2024

ORDER

It is noted that on 20.11.2023, no one appeared for the parties. Todayalso no one appeared for the parties. The revision is pending since 2019. Inview of the aforesaid, the matter is considered on merit.

2. The present revision is filed under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act, 1984 r/w Section 397, 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed by AdditionalPrincipal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain on 11.10.2018 in Miscellaneous CriminalCase No.156/2016.

3. Facts of the case are that the non-applicants have filed an applicationunder Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the applicant claiming maintenance to thetune of Rs.60,000/- per month with the averment that the non-applicant No.1was married to applicant on 23.04.1994 according to Hindu rituals and twochildren were born out of this wedlock namely, Urvashi and Anshul (non-applicant No.2) and non-applicant No.2 lives with her mother non-applicantNo.1 and Urvashi got married to Gaurav Tiwari in the year 2016.

4. It is alleged that applicant along with his relatives have startedscolding and tortured the non-applicant No.1 in context that she has broughtless gift from her father's home. She further alleged that from the very first dayof her marriage, the applicant and his relatives have started torture the non-applicant No.1 in context of less gift bought by her from her father's home. It isfurther alleged that first time after the marriage the applicant demandedRs.5,00,000/- from the non-applicant No.1 and it is also alleged that theapplicant said to the non-applicant No.1 that he does not like her and he wantsto do second marriage. That many times applicant has sent non-applicant No.1to her parental home and by making several requests by her and family ofapplicant came and took non-applicant No.1 with him at his home. It is furtheralleged that after the birth of the children also there was no change in thebehaviour of the applicant and after that the applicant has gone from his homefor several days and when he returned back to home and when non-applicantenquired that where he was gone then the applicant misbehaved with the non- applicant No.1 and said that he has done second marriage.

5. The trial Court considered the statement of the respondent, who has

stated that after the marriage the present applicant started demanding dowry ofRs.10 lacs ornaments and vehicle and for the said reason, he started subjectingto her cruelty. He used to beat her and also threatened for second marriage. Heused to drink heavily and thereafter used to beat her. She also stated that for thesaid reason, she had no option, but to live separately with father. She has noincome. It was stated that the applicant is engaged in business of Tour andTravels and earn Rs.1 lac per month. The trial Court after considering theevidence of both the sides held that the respondent has reasonable cause to liveseparately from the applicant and is entitled for maintenance. The trial Courtfurther held that the present applicant is working as UDC in EducationDepartment and as per NA-3, his salary in the month of October 2016 wasRs.37,187/-. In view of the aforesaid, the trial Court awarded maintenance ofRs.10,000/- to respondent/wife and Rs.5000/- to respondent No.2 till he attainsmajority. The aforesaid order is well considered after evaluating all the facts andevidence.

6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court does not find any illegality orperversity in the order awarding the maintenance to the respondents. Therevision is dismissed.

soumya

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)JUDGE