GYANWATI Vs. JUDGE FAMILY COURT
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
JUDGE FAMILY COURT
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This Court has rendered hearing to learned counsel
for the revisionist while none has turned up on behalf of
respondent no. 2 even in the revised call after lunch. Notice
upon respondent no. 2 has been served sufficiently and name of
his counsel appears on the list.
(2.) The facts of the case are that revisionist no. 1
Gyanwati was wedded with respondent no. 2 Ayodhya Prasad
on 21.04.1995, as per Hindu Rites & Customs. After marriage,
she came to reside in her matrimonial house but unfortunately
the relations between the couple could not remain cordial and
she was subjected to sundry atrocities on account of dowry
demand. Ultimately, she was constrained to leave the
matrimonial house and she came to reside with her parents at
Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. She instituted a Misc.
Case No. 65 of 2002 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking
maintenance for her and her minor son master Kamal Kishore.
Parallel litigation under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act
was also instituted by Ayodhya Prasad against Gyanwati for
restoration of conjugal rights. Both the cases were adjudicated
by Judge, Family Court, District Udham Singh Nagar on dated
01.10.2003 whereby suit no. 90 of 2002 filed by Ayodhya Prasad
was decreed against Gyanwati and she was directed to live
with her husband, simultaneously, learned Judge dismissed the
petition of Gyanwati under Section 125 Cr.P.C. merely on the
ground that in her evidence adduced before the Court, she
expressed her unwillingness to accompany her husband, even
if, Ayodhya Prasad wanted to resume his married life with her.
(3.) It has been argued on behalf of the revisionist that
four days after the said direction, Gyanwati went to her
matrimonial house with her son on dated 05.10.2003 but her
husband and parents-in-law declined to accept her entry in the
house and evicted her again at 04.30 p.m. from their abode. In
these circumstances, she again filed Misc. Case No. 198 of 2006
under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance for herself and
her son. In that case also, Ayodhya Prasad filed his objections /
written statement (paper no. 14 C) and resisted the petition.
The learned Judge rejected Misc. Case No. 198 of 2006 mainly
on the ground that her previous petition no. 65 of 2002 for the
same relief was dismissed by the court on merits, so she is not
entitled to launch same proceedings second time against her
husband Ayodhya Prasad.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.