HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Smt. Parwati moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance allowance against her husband Someshwar. The said application was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 02.08.2008. Aggrieved against the said order, present criminal revision was preferred by the revisionist Smt. Parwati.
(2.) In her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it was averred that Smt. Parvati was married to Someshwar according to Hindu rites and rituals on 20.04.2007. The parents and family members of the bride gifted articles to the best of their capacity and also spent good amount of money in the marriage, but in spite of that, the husband and his family members started harassing her for want of bringing sufficient dowry. The applicant informed her parents about the same on telephone on 07.06.2007. Some of the members from her parental home came to the matrimonial home of the applicant on 15.07.2007. They tried to persuade the members of the matrimonial home of the applicant, but to no avail. They assaulted the applicant and sent her to her parental home along with her father. Since then, the applicant was living in her parental home. The applicant was unable to maintain herself. Her husband has sufficient means, but he neglected and refused to maintain her. Opposite party/respondent was earning Rs. 12,000- 13,000 per month, and therefore, she prayed for Rs. 5,000/- per mensem as maintenance allowance. The opposite party-respondent appeared before the learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar and filed written statement. He admitted his marriage with the applicant. This fact was underlined that the applicant did not like him and therefore, she was reluctant to live with him. The applicant continuously maintained distance from him. She went to her parental home in his absence and without the permission of opposite part/respondent. Opposite party/respondent made various efforts for bringing the applicant to her matrimonial home, but she was not ready. She was earning Rs. 3000/- per month and was able to maintain herself.
(3.) Pw 1 Draupadi, PW 2 Parwati (revisionist), PW 3 Balwant Singh (father of the revisionist) were examined on behalf of the applicant-revisionist. DW 1 Someshwar and DW 2 Vijay Kumar were examined on behalf of the respondent. Learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar made an endeavour for reconciliation between the parties on 17.01.2008, but the attempt failed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.