Decided on June 25,2013

Jasvinder Kaur And Others Appellant
Principal Judge, Family Court, Rudrapur And Another Respondents


- (1.) Revisionist Jasvinder Kaur along with her sons Jagmeet Singh and Ramanjeet Singh moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against Swarn Singh, opposite party, for granting them (revisionists) maintenance allowence. Opposite party Swarn Singh is the husband of applicant no. 1 and father of the applicant nos. 2 and 3. Learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, vide order dated 17.10.2006, dismissed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding that applicant no. 1 was not residing in the house of opposite party without any justifiable cause.
(2.) This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the evidence brought on record. The evidence led by the parties was read over by the learned counsel for the applicants in the open court. The following statement of applicant no. 1 Jasvinder Kaur takes away the whole case of her : Even if Swarn Singh wants to take me, I will not go with him. I am not prepared to go with him on any condition.
(3.) Apart from the above statement, many a things have come in the evidence of the parties, which indicate that the applicant no. 1 is not ready to go and live with the opposite party without any justifiable cause. This Court, vide order dated 12.06.2013, directed the husband and wife to appear in person on 24.06.2013, in order to explore the possibility of reconciliation. While the opposite party appeared in person, applicant no. 1 did not. Learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in his judgment dated 17.10.2006, assigned the reasons in detail as to why the applicant no. 1 was not entitled to maintenance allowance. The clinching statement in the cross-examination of the applicant no. 1 is also highlighted by this Court in the foregoing paragraph of this Judgment. This court is unable to take a view different from what was taken by the learned Judge, Family Court while refusing the maintenance allowance to the applicant no. 1. Criminal Revision preferred by the revisionist/applicant no. 1 is dismissed to this extent. It is evidenced that the opposite party did not neglect or refuse to maintain his wife.;

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