- (1.)This revision under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) has been filed by the applicant/husband against the order dated 11.11.2011, passed in Criminal Case No.130/2010, by learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bhopal (M.P.), whereby learned Family Court awarded Rs.2000/- per month to the respondent no.1-Babita and Rs.1000/- per month to the respondent no.2-Ku. Dhanlaxmi total amount of Rs.3000/- per month to the respondents.
(2.)The application on behalf of the respondents was filed under the provisions of Section 125 of the Code, contending that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent No.1 was solemnized on 22.04.2009 according to Hindu custom. After marriage, it is alleged by the respondent no.1 that the applicant and his family members used to torture her for demand of dowry. In May, 2009, parents of the applicant left the respondent No.1 to her paternal house and demanded to fulfill the amount of Rs. 50,000/- as dowry and informed them when arranged the said amount they will take back to the respondent No.1. After a week, the parents of the respondent No.1 was not able to fulfill the said amount but given assurance to fulfill the said amount in future and as per assurance, parents of the applicant taken back the respondent No.1 giving warning if demand will not be fulfilled within a week, they will left the respondent No.1 to her parental house for long time. Thereafter, they used to harasses and marpeet the respondent No.1 with regard to the demand of dowry. On 10.02.2010 the respondent No.2 was born and at that time all the expenses of delivery occurred by the parents of the respondent No.1 and no heed was given by her in-laws. Thereafter, parents of the applicant denied to take back the respondents without any dowry, since then the respondent No.1 has been residing in parental house with the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.1 is a house wife, unable to do labour work and has also liability to take care of her six years old child, therefore, the respondents have filed the application under Section 125 of the Code for maintenance.
(3.)Applicant entered his appearance by filing reply and denied all the allegations made by the respondent No.1, contended that the parents of the applicant neither harassed the respondent No.1 on account of any dowry nor marpeet with her on any issue. She went to her parents house on many occasions without giving any information and permission from the applicant. The respondent No.1 was pressuring the applicant to do job and to live at her paternal house Bhopal. The respondent No.1 without any reason left the house of the applicant and never turned up, therefore, the impugned order for granting the maintenance amount to the respondents deserves to be dismissed.