Decided on June 21,2012

GYANWATI Appellant


- (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.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.