Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. - (1.) The instant revision has been preferred by the petitioner/wife assailing the order dated March 7, 2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur, South 24 Parganas in M-Case No. 294 of 2016 (T.R. Case No. 294 of 2016, Reg. No. 350 of 2016) rejecting the petitioner's prayer for interim maintenance.
(2.) The facts relating to the instant criminal revision, in brief, is that this petitioner/wife filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) against opposite party No. 1/husband before the A.C.J.M., Baruipur on August 4, 2016 praying for her maintenance. The said application was registered as M. Case No. 294 of 2016 and was transferred to the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Baruipur for disposal. On November 11, 2016 petitioner filed another application praying for granting interim maintenance allowance in her favour. O.P. No.1 appeared and contested the said application. Thereafter on hearing both parties learned Magistrate rejected the prayer for interim maintenance by the impugned order.
(3.) It was submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that since after marriage of the petitioner with the O.P. No.1, on October 15, 2015, she was subjected to cruelty at the matrimonial home and was pressurized to bring more money and when the petitioner failed to meet the demand she was driven away from the matrimonial home on July 19, 2016, for which she had to lodge diary at the Baruipur P.S, and since them she is residing at her father's house and is fully dependent on her parents as she has no means of her own to maintain herself while the O.P. No.1 in spite of his sufficient means has failed and neglected to pay any maintenance allowance or any single farthing to the petitioner. It was also submitted by him that the learned Magistrate in spite of coming to a finding that the petitioner is the legally married wife of the O.P. No.1 having no means of her own to maintain herself and she is staying at her parent's house and the O.P. No.1 is not providing any money or other amenities to the petitioner rejected the prayer for interim maintenance only relying upon the advocate's letter sent on behalf of the O.P. No.1 showing his willingness to take back the petitioner/wife and had complained before the Gram Panchayat. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, learned Magistrate was not justified in rejecting the prayer for an interim maintenance allowance of the petitioner.;