Amar Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) Heard Sri R.D. Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned AGA for the State and Sri Praveen Kumar Pandey, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Amit Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record.
(2.) The revisionist Smt. Madhu has preferred this criminal revision against the judgement and order dated 03.05.2012, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 908 of 2010 (Smt. Madhu vs. Rajesh Kumar) under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Bhuta, District Bareilly whereby learned Principal Judge, Family Court partly allowed the application and awarded maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs. 1000/- to the minor daughter Km. Rakthi while the claim of the revisionist-applicant Smt. Madhu moved under section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, was rejected.
(3.) Brief facts giving rise to the present revision are that an application under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code of 1973') was moved by Smt. Madhu on behalf of herself and her minor daughter Km. Rakhi claiming maintenance on the ground that the marriage of applicant-revisionist Smt. Madhu was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 Rajesh Kumar on 06.05.2009 according to Hindu rites and rituals. At the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was given by the parents of the applicant-revisionist. From the wedlock, one daughter was born who is living presently with her mother Smt. Madhu. Her husband and in-laws were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of marriage and used to torture her physically and mentally. On 20.5.2010, the applicant-revisionist went her paternal house to participate in the marriage ceremony of her brother. Despite giving invitation neither the opposite party no. 2 Rajesh Kumar nor his family members attended the marriage of revisionist's brother. On 04.07.2010, when the applicant-revisionist alongwith his father came to her sasural then the opposite party no. 2, his mother and sister refused to give entry into the house and threatened to kill her. They demanded washing machine, colour T.V. and cash worth Rs. 1,00,000/- as an additional dowry. The revisionist no. 1 Smt. Madhu is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter as she has no means of income whereas opposite party no. 2 earned Rs. 20,000/- per month from medical store.;