Decided on July 29,2013

Reeta Mathur Appellant
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents


- (1.) Smt. Reeta Mathur (revisionist herein) filed an application for grant of maintenance allowance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against her husband Sanjay Mathur (respondent no. 2 herein). Smt. Reeta Mathur (applicant) stated, in her application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., that she was married to Sanjay Mathur on 27.04.2002, according to Hindu rites and rituals. A good amount of money was spent in purchasing gifts. When Reeta Mathur came to her matrimonial home, her in-laws castigated her for not bringing sufficient dowry. They demanded Rs. 3,00,000/-, in reply to which her parents expressed their inability to fulfill the same. Sanjay Mathur and the members of his family harassed Reeta Mathur. On 18.03.2003, the husband of the applicant and his family members took Smt. Reeta to her parents on the occasion of Holi festival. They demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- from applicant s parents. Such demand was repeated on 26th May 2003 and 12th August 2003. On 26.10.2003, applicant was ousted from her matrimonial home. On 07.11.2003, Sanjay Mathur came to the house of maternal aunt of the applicant. He took the minor daughter from the applicant forcibly. The minor daughter was aged five months when the opposite party / respondent no. 2 snatched her from the custody of the applicant / revisionist. An information to this effect was given to Sr. Superintendent of Police, Haridwar. Opposite party / respondent no. 2 was having illicit relations with one Nidhi Bhatnagar. The applicant was unable to maintain herself. The opposite party, having sufficient means, neglected and refused to maintain the applicant. It was also stated that the income of the opposite party was Rs. 15,000/- per month.
(2.) Opposite party, in his written statement, admitted his marriage with the applicant. Opposite party stated, among other things, in the written statement, that the applicant was having extra-marital relations with one Amit. While the applicant was willing to marry Amit, her parents were not interested in having her married to Amit. Opposite party or any of the members of his family, never demanded any dowry from the applicant. Opposite party was working in Railway Department. When a daughter was begotten by the applicant, out of her wedlock with the opposite party, the latter looked after the new born baby and incurred expenses of the nursing home. The opposite party also gave details of the money orders, which were sent to the applicant. The replication was also filed on behalf of the applicant.
(3.) Smt. Reeta Mathur entered into the witness box as PW1. DW1 Sanjay Mathur and DW2 Sandeep Mathur were examined on behalf of the opposite party. Many a documents were filed on their behalf. The marriage between Reeta Mathur and Sanjay Mathur was admitted.;

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