POONAM Vs. STATE
LAWS(UTN)-2013-11-16
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on November 28,2013

POONAM Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

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 13.6.2008. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal revision was preferred by the wife and her son (revisionists herein). 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.
(2.) 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 home. 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 Dehradun.
(3.) THE averments contained in the application were affirmed by the applicant -wife in her affidavit dated 23.11.2007. In her cross -examination, applicant -wife stated that she was living with her mother at Dehradun. She was assaulted by her husband. She did not report the incidents to police because it would have been of no use indulging in litigation. She was living in her parental home since 25th August, 2001. She was ousted by her husband. She was an illiterate lady. She denied the fact that her husband was also an illiterate person. Applicant -wife denied the fact that she was not willing to live in Saharanpur. She did not want to live with her husband, inasmuch as, her husband assaulted her and levelled unfounded allegations against her. She did not know the name of the printing press where her husband was working. She also denied that she was earning Rs. 2,000 per month.;


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