- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Heard Sri P. C. Srivastava learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA and Sri B. K. Tripathi holding brief of Sri S. K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.
(2.) THIS revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18-4-2006 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, in Criminal Case No. 605 of 2002 (Smt. Anjali Singh v. Dharmendra Singh ). Smt. Anjali Singh filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. against the respondent No. 2 Dharmendra Singh, in brief on the grounds that she was married according to the Hindu Customs with Dharmendra Singh on 27-2-2000 and her bidai ceremony took place on 28-2-2000. In her marriage her parents spent about four lacs of rupees in addition to rupees two lacs in Tilak ceremony. After her bidai she went to the house of her husband and started discharging her responsibilities as a wife. After her marriage the economical condition of her parent detonated as a result of which they could not give the Motorcycle to her husband as promised by them at the time of the marriage. Because of non fulfillment of the said demand, revisionist Smt. Anjali Singh was assaulted with Lathi, Danda, Fists and Kicks and was subjected to torture for more than three months and ultimately she was turned out from her in- law's house. The revisionist further stated that she is unable to maintain herself and her parents are in poor condition to maintain her. With the aforesaid allegations she filed the aforesaid application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. and claimed the maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month from her husband respondent No. 2 Dharmendra Singh and Rs. 2000/- as litigation expenses. Respondent No. 2 Dharmendra the husband appeared in the case and filed his written statement, wherein he had stated that the revisionist does not have any right to file an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. He stated that neither the demand of dowry was made in the marriage nor demand of motorcycle was made after the marriage. He further stated that at the time of marriage he was a student and under the pressure of his parents he had entered into the wedlock. He further stated that he had no source of income. He stated that mother of the revisionist was teacher in Government School and the revisionist was also employed in Anganwari. He has further stated that the revisionist wanted that he should not live in the village but live in city, which was denied by him and therefore, with mala fide intention the revisionist his wife left companionship and filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. on wrong facts.
(3.) IN support of her case the revisionist Anjali Singh, the wife, examined herself as P. W. 1, Kalawati as P. W. 2 and Maharaj Singh as P. W. 3. Dharmendra Singh husband examined himself as D. W. 1, Parmanand Pandey as D. W. 2 and Yadunandan Singh as D. W. 3. The trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record, recorded a finding that so far as the income of the respondent husband is concerned, the respondent was the owner of four bighas of land which was separate from the joint family property, and therefore, he has sufficient source of income but he dismissed the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr. P. C. by holding that it is possible that the revisionist could not adjust herself in her in-law's house. He dismissed the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr. P. C. on the ground that she does not want to live with her husband. He further observed that there is no material on record to indicate that the husband has done any cruelty with the revisionist or that the revisionist has got any reason to live separately from her husband. On these reasons the trial Court has rejected the application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. by the revisionist.;