POONAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
U.C.DHYANI, J. -
(1.) APPLICANT Smt. Poonam (wife) alongwith
her son moved an application under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance against her
husband in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court,
Dehradun. Ajay Kumar (husband) contested the
application and filed written statement. Evidence was
led by the parties. After considering the evidence on
record, learned Principal Judge, Family Court dismissed
the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., vide
judgment and order dated 13.06.2008. Aggrieved
against the same, present criminal revision was
preferred by the wife and her son (revisionists herein).
(2.) AS per applicant -wife, she was married to respondent -husband on 12.12.1991, at Dehradun,
according to Hindu rites and rituals. Applicant -wife
went to Saharanpur after her marriage and performed
conjugal rights. Her parents gave the articles in
marriage according to their capacity. A son named
Master Sagar alias Tinku was born out of the wedlock
of Smt. Poonam with Ajay Kumar. Master Sagar was
aged 10 years at the time of filing of application under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. He was a student of class V.
After sometime, husband and in -laws of applicant -wife,
started harassing her for not bringing sufficient dowry.
They ridiculed her on the ground that no colour T.V. or
fridge or motorcycle was given in the marriage.
Applicant's husband and in -laws assaulted and ousted
her from the matrimonial home. Applicant -wife did not
take any action, for otherwise the same would have
eroded the image of her matrimonial home. Applicant -
wife was not given food for 2 -3 days. She was also
deprived of clothes, apart from food. She further stated
in the application that her husband was a drunkard, who
used to beat her. She took Rs. 5,000/ - from her parental
house twice or thrice, but could not satisfy her husband,
who threatened that if she did not bring motorcycle,
colour T.V. etc., she would be killed.
Applicant -wife further stated in the application that her husband owned a printing press.
Monthly income of her husband was Rs. 20,000/ -. He
was also the owner of a house in which the tenants were
living. Total monthly income of her husband was Rs.
26,000/ -. The respondent -husband owed a duty to maintain his wife alongwith the son. Applicant -wife
herself was an illiterate lady, who knows nothing but to
append her signatures. She has no source of livelihood.
Her husband has not given her anything since the day
she alongwith her son was ousted from her matrimonial
(3.) RESPONDENT -husband admitted in the written statement that he was married to applicant -wife on
12.10.1991, at Dehradun and a son was begotten out of said wedlock. Respondent -husband denied assault and
harassment to the applicant -wife. He also denied
demand of dowry in his written statement. According
to respondent -husband, applicant -wife used to go out of
the matrimonial home with some persons, to whom she
told that they were her relatives, without rhyme or
reason. According to him, applicant -wife did not
perform conjugal rights. Respondent -husband was a
semi -literate person, who received Rs. 1,200/ - per
month, while working in a printing press in Saharanpur.
He was not the owner of printing press. The applicant -
wife was living separately from him without sufficient
reason and, therefore, she was not entitled to
maintenance allowance. According to respondent -
husband, his wife was living in adultery with some
person (name not disclosed). It was further stated that
applicant -wife was living with such person in
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.