- (1.) THIS criminal revision, pre ferred by the revisionist under Section 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr. P. C.) r/w Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-8-1996 passed by Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal in Criminal Case No. 9 of 1996, whereby the learned Family Judge has rejected the application moved by revisionist u/s. . 125 of Cr. P. C. for maintenance allowance.
(2.) I have heard Sri U. P. S. Negi, learned, counsel for the revisionists and Sri Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and perused the entire material available on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that revisionist No. 1 Smt. Savitri Devi Biswas moved an. application u/s. 125 of Cr. P. C. before Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal on 28-8-1995 stating therein that she is the wife of respondent No. 1 Mansa Ram and she was married with him before 10 years as per Hindu 3 customs and out of the said wedlock, two sons namely Deepak aged 7 years and Pradeep aged 5 years were born out. It was stated that after some time of marriage, for same time, the behaviour of respondent No. 1 and his family members towards the revisionist No. 1 was normal, but after some time they started com mitting cruelty upon her by committing Marpit and they also started harassing her physically and mentally. It was also stated that they also started pressurizing her to get dowry from her parents. It was also stated that since the fi nancial condition of parents of revisionist No. 1 was not good, hence she could not satisfy the demand of dowry of her in-laws. It was further stated that before six months of filing of application, respondent No. 1 and his fam ily members ousted the revisionist No. 1 from her matrimonial house and also threatened her about her life by saying her to come back only with a golden locket and other articles other wise not to come back. Hence, from that day, she is living in her parental house. It was also stated that on 21-7-1995 at 11:00 A. M. , respondent No. 1 and his family members came at the parental house of revisionist No. 1. At that time, she was alone at home. There she was beaten by respondent No. 1 and his fam ily members by fists and kicks and on alarm raised by revisionist No. 1, her mother Rampyari Devi and Village Pradhan Madan Singh could manage to save her. It was also stated that since when she was ousted from her matrimonial house, she was not given any money or clothes etc. by the respondent No. 1 and he also committed Marpit with her so that she might not come back home. Further, she was an illiterate lady and was having no source of income and as such she is unable to maintain herself and her children. It was fur ther stated that the respondent No. 1 is posted in Indian Military Service and was getting Rs. 4,500/- per month as salary and besides this, he was having sufficient agricultural land from which he earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. As such, an amoupt of Rs. 1,000/- for herself and Rs. 600/- each for her two children, in total Rs. 2,200/- was sought as maintenance from the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 also filed his ob jection to the application moved by the revi sionist No. 1 and denied the averments made in the application moved u/s. 125 Cr. P. C. and he stated that revisionist No. 1 is an hale and hearty woman and she also knew the work of knitting and sewing and was also doing business of selling milk, out of which she earns Rs. 1,500/- per month. It was also stated that she also used to earn Rs. 12,000/- per month from agricultural work. It was further stated on behalf of respondent No. 1 that he had not ousted her rather she is a woman of vagabond nature and she was not desirous to stay at one place in her matrimonial house. His posting was at border places in Indian Army, hence he could not keep her with him and in his ab sence, she used to wander outside the village for many days. With all the abovesaid aver ments, he prayed for dismissal of the applica tion, moved by revisionist No. 1.
(3.) THE learned Judge, Family Court, Pauri Garhwal vide his judgment and order dated 21-8-1996 after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the appli cation moved by revisionist No. 1 moved u/s. 125 Cr. P. C. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 21-8-1996, the present revision has been preferred. Revisionist No. 1-Smt. Savitri Devi in support of her case got herself examined as P. W. 1 in which she stated that she was mar ried with Mans a Ram in the month of No vember, 1985. Out of the said wedlock, two sons namely Deepak aged 7 years and Pradeep aged 5 years were born out. It was also stated that after 4-5 years of marriage, respondent No. 1 started committing cruelty upon her by committing Marpit and he started pressuriz ing her to get a golden locket and golden ear rings. In the month of February, 1995, her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law ousted her from her matrimonial house for demand of dowry. After that she had gone to her parental house along with her children. At that time, she also did not get medically exam ined because she did not want tq raise the is sue further. On 21-7-1995, respondent No. 1 along with his sister aged about 39-40 years & brother aged about 31-32 years, came at the parental house of revisionist No. 1. At that time, she was alone at home and her mother had gone at field. There she was beaten by them brutally by fists and kicks and on alarm raised by her, her mother and Village Pradhan Madan Singh Bisht had come and saved her life. After that she went to the police station and lodged the report. Thereafter, she also got medically examined. The accused persons were arrested by Kanoongo and the case is also going on against them. It is also stated that the respondent No. 1 is not giving any thing for maintenance of herself and her chil dren. She also did not have any work to do. She also stated that if the respondent No. 1 would give a promise in writing that he would not commit Marpit with her, then she could live in her matrimonial house. She also sought Rs. 2,200/- per month as maintenance for maintenance of herself and her children. She also stated that respondent No. 1 is posted in Indian Military Service and was getting Rs. 4,500/- per month as salary.;