RAKESH KUMAR DHIMAN Vs. ANJNA KUMARI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 23.5.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Cr. Revision No.7 of 2010, affirming order dated 8.3.2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, in Case No.13/4 of 2008.

(2.) The facts in brief are that respondents had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance against petitioner on the grounds that respondent No.1 is the wife and respondent No.2 is the son of petitioner. The marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 6.11.2004. The petitioner maintained respondent No.1 properly for about one year. Thereafter petitioner and his parents started illtreating respondent No.1 for not bringing adequate dowry, they demanded Rs. 50,000/- from respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 was given beatings, a compromise was effected on 7.1.2008 but despite compromise there was no improvement in the behaviour of the petitioner towards respondent No.1. On 22.2.2008, petitioner forcibly took the respondent No.1 to the house of parents of respondent No.1 and directed her to return home only with Rs. 50,000/- . The petitioner neglected to maintain the respondents despite means. The respondents have no means to maintain themselves. The respondents claimed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses from the petitioner.

(3.) The application was contested by petitioner by taking preliminary objection of maintainability. It was asserted by petitioner that respondent No.1 had sufficient means to maintain herself as well respondent No.2. The marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1 and paternity of respondent No.2 were not denied. The illtreatment alleged by respondent No.1 was denied so also the demand of dowry. It has been alleged that respondent No.1 wants the petitioner to reside with her parents as "Ghar Jamai". This was not acceptable to the petitioner, therefore, in order to harass the petitioner respondent No.1 filed the petition. It has been alleged that respondent No.1 was working as clerk in a private school and she was also doing tailoring work. She was in a position to maintain herself as well as respondent No.2. The petitioner is a social worker and at the time of filing of the reply he was BDC member and drawing Rs. 1200/- per month as remuneration. The remaining stand of the respondents was denied by the petitioner. The respondents filed rejoinder and denied the case set up by the petitioner.