Criminal Revision No.17(4) - Lakhimpur Judiciary

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2The material facts leading to filing of this <strong>Criminal</strong><strong>Revision</strong> may be summarised as follows :The Respondent/ first party had initiated a proceedingu/s 125 CrPC against the Petitioner/ second party stating interalia that shewas married to the Petitioner/ second party about 6/7 years back as persocial customs, and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife,and out of their marital wedlock, two daughters were born. It is allegedthat after about one month of her marriage, the Petitioner/ second partyill-treated and perpetrated physical as well as mental torture upon her ondemand of dowry and used to drive her out from the matrimonial home,but her father used to take back her to her matrimonial home, and on eachsuch occasion the Petitioner/ second party did not mend his behaviourand conduct towards her and again about two years back, he drove herout from the matrimonial home while she was in pregnant condition, forwhich she was compelled to take shelter in her parental home, and on21.06.2009, she gave birth to another daughter. It is also alleged by theRespondent/ first party that the Petitioner/ second party neither enquiredabout her and her baby nor he provided any sort of maintenance to themsince her departure from the matrimonial home inspite of having monthlyincome of Rs.9,000/- to Rs.10,000/- only. Hence, she claimedmaintenance allowance of Rs.3,000/- only per month in total to herselfand her minor daughter from the Petitioner/ second party.The Petitioner/ second party on service of notices,appeared and contested the claim of the Respondent/ first party by filingWritten Statement, wherein he denied to have married the Respondent/first party, and to him, the family members of the Respondent/ first partypushed her to his house by force. But he did not make any specific denialwith respect to the birth of the children, and on the other hand, he statedthat the eldest daughter of the Respondent/ first party is with him and heis maintaining her. To him, his wife, Respondent/ first party left his houseon her own will. The Respondent/ first party also stated that he works ondaily wage basis and maintains his aged parents somehow. Under theContd...
3premises, the Petitioner/ second party prayed for dismissal of the claim ofthe Respondent/ first party for granting maintenance to her and her minordaughter.In course of hearing the application for maintenance,the Respondent/ first party adduced herself and another witness, andlikewise the Petitioner/ second party also adduced himself. The learnedtrial court on appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearingargument of the learned counsels of both sides, came to the conclusionthat the Petitioner/ second party inspite of having sufficient meansneglects or refuses to maintain the Respondent/ first party and her minordaughter, who are not in a position to maintain themselves , andconsequently directed the Petitioner/ second party to make payment ofmonthly maintenance allowance as indicated earlier.The Petitioner/ second party being aggrieved by theimpugned Judgment & Order invoked the revisional jurisdiction of thisCourt to set aside the same.I have heard argument of the learned counsels of boththe parties at length and also perused the records of the called for Misc.Case No.18/2010.The learned counsel for the Petitioner/ second partyhas submitted that the learned trial court erred in Law and facts bypassing the impugned Judgment & Order. According to him, theRespondent/ first party failed to substantiate that she is a legally marriedwife of the Petitioner/ second party. It is also submitted that the learnedtrial court failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its properperspective and inspite of having no evidence as to physical torture onthe Respondent/ first party by the Petitioner/ second party either oral ordocumentary failed to take into consideration that she had no just groundto live apart from the Petitioner/ second party and said aspect of thematter itself demonstrate that she left the company of the Petitioner/second party on her own volition and free will. To him, theRespondent/ first party had also failed to prove that the Petitioner/ secondContd...
Page 1: 1IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE : L
Page 5 and 6: 5place with the Petitioner/ second
Page 7 and 8: 7place by performing 'Naam Kirtan'
Page 9: 9The learned trial court keeping in

Criminal Revision No.17(4) - Lakhimpur Judiciary

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?