- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS revision application is directed against the order dated 3.12.2002 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jam -shedpur in Miscellaneous Case No. 76/146 of 2000 -01 whereby the application filed by the petitioner -wife under Section 125, Cr PC has been allowed in part by awarding maintenance of Rs. 200/ - for the minor daughter of the petitioner but maintenance claimed by the petitioner -wife has been refused. Petitioner filed an application before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jam -shedpur alleging, inter alia, that after the marriage with opposite party No. 2 she was tortured both mentally and physically although her father gave a sum of Rs. 45,000/ - to opposite party No. 2 in cash on his demand, excluding one bicycle, one gold ring, two sets of utensils, cloths and other house -hold articles.
(3.) PETITIONER alleged that she was compelled to go back her parent house and since then she is residing in the house of her father. She, therefore, claims for maintenance of Rs. 1000/ - for herself and Rs. 500/ - for her minor child. The opposite party contested the case by filing show -cause and denying the allegations made by the petitioner. The opposite party stated 'that he never neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner and her child and he is ready to keep them in his house. Before deciding the case the Court tried his best for reconciliation but the petitioner refused to live with the opposite party. For better appreciation para -9 of the order is quoted below : "9. On discussion of the evidence on record, I find that the applicant has never remained at her sasural (martial house) for more than seven months. Even after compromise in the criminal case, she returned back to her parents house after only one month. Although, she and her father have alleged that the opposite party and the members of his family used to make dowry demand of Rs. 50,000/ - for which she was tortured and assaulted, but the fact remains that the criminal prosecution was compromised and she went to her sasural but came back only after one month. During the proceeding of this case, several attempts were made by this Court for amicable settlement of dispute. At one stage the applicant agreed to go back to her martial house on the assurance and undertaking given by her husband for her welfare and safety but she did not turn -up on the date fixed by the Court on the plea of illness. Subsequently, she stated that she is not ready to go back to her martial house. The applicant and the members of his family made four attempts during that period by making necessary transport arrangements to take back the applicant and her daughter to her sasural but the applicant was found unwilling to go with them. All these facts have been staled in the order dated 28th February, 2002. She was asked by the Court as to what was the reason for her apprehension of her life but she could not give any satisfactory explanation. It was observed that the applicant had no reasonable ground for the allegation of any apprehension to her life and she was raising the bogey at the instance of her father for the reasons best known to them. Even the mukhiya and respectable villagers of the opposite party had come to the Court to assure the applicant of her safety and well being at her marital house but the applicant and her father avoided on one plea or the other. I do not find sufficient cause for the applicant to live separately from her husband. Therefore, I hold that she is not entitled to any maintenance allowance. However, the minor daughter of the applicant, aged two and half years, is entitled to maintenance allowance. Therefore, I direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 200/ - per month as maintenance allowance to the daughter of the applicant. The said maintenance allowance of Rs. 200/ - per month must be paid to the applicant by 10th day of every successive month. This order shall take effect from the month of December, 2002." ;