ANIL YADAV Vs. SEEMA YADAV AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Sec. 482 of Crimial P.C. has been filed against the order dated 16/05/2011 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Criminal Revision No. 19/2011 affirming the order dated 13/01/2011 passed by JMFC, Vidisha in Criminal Case No.20/2011.

(2.) The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that an application under Sec. 125 of Crimial P.C. was filed by the respondents before the Court of JMFC, Vidisha for grant of maintenance on the allegations that the respondent no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant whereas the respondent no.2 is the daughter of the applicant and they have no source of livelihood. It was alleged in the application that the respondent no.1 was married to the applicant on 21/02/2002 as per Hindu Rights and Rituals. The entire marriage expenses were borne by her maternal uncles as the father of the respondent no.1 was not in a position to bear the marriage expenses. The respondent no.2 was born about 1 1/2 year after the marriage and the delivery expenses were borne by the brother of the respondent no.1. After marriage, the applicant and her mother started treating her with cruelty. They were not allowing the respondent no.1 to even go to the kitchen. A false allegation of playing witchcraft was also levelled against her. The applicant also used to beat her without any reason. On 14/02/2006, the applicant left the respondent no.1 in the house of her maternal uncle and where she is residing along with her minor daughter with great difficulties. She has no source of income and is unable to maintain herself whereas the applicant has 5.134 Hectares of land and is earning an amount of Rupees Two Lacs Per year by way of profit. He is also earning Rs. 5000.00 per month from other business. Accordingly, it was pleaded that the applicant is earning Rupees Two Lacs Sixty Thousand per annum.

(3.) The application was opposed by the applicant and he denied the allegations. He also denied that his yearly income is Two Lacs Sixty Thousand. It was further pleaded that the respondent no.1 used to go to the house of her maternal uncle very frequently and without informing anybody in her matrimonial house. She also believes in playing witchcraft. A decree under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was also passed against her but she did not join the company of the applicant. In fact, it is the respondent no.1 who has deserted the applicant and, accordingly, she is not entitled for maintenance.