IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the husband's legal obligation to maintain his wife, particularly in cases of cruelty and dowry demands, reaffirming the purpose of Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution.

ORDER :

1. The applicant has filed this Criminal Revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Courts Act read with Section 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 9-11-2023 passed by the learned Judge of Family Court, Mungeli (CG) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 229/2023 by which the application filed under Section 123 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant for grant of maintenance has been dismissed on the count that the applicant is residing separately without any rhyme and reason.

2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the marriage between the applicant/wife and respondent/husband was solemnized on 31-7-2019 in District Mungeli as per Hindu Rites and customs and at the time of marriage, the father of the applicant had given gifts and gold according to their financial status. The case of the applicant is that immediately after some time of the marriage, the respondent and his family members started torturing her for demand of dowry, demanded one Car and 10 Tolas gold. Even after this, the applicant continued to tolerate everything, but due to constant harassment by them, she informed her parents about this, accordingly her father tried to fulfill the demand of his daughter’s-in-laws by selling his agricultural land and gave him three grams of gold to fulfill their demand. Even after receiving the same, they started beating and torturing her by saying that she did not bring the Car in dowry. On 10-4-2022 the respondent again demanded for Car and told her unless and until the car is not given she will not be allowed to enter into her matrimonial house. This has compelled her to leave her matrimonial house and started living with her parents in her parental house.

3. It is also case of the applicant/wife that the parents of applicant and members of the society requested to keep the applicant with the respondent in the social meeting but the respondent again started demanding the car as dowry and he refused to keep her with him which has compelled the applicant/wife to file a complaint against her husband and her in-laws. On the basis of said complaint, FIR was registered as Crime No. 105 of 2022 under Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC against the respondent and his family members. It is further contended that the respondent/husband has 25 acres of land where he is getting two crops in a year from which he is earning Rs. 10,00,000/- and he is also doing business of cement and iron etc., from which he is earning Rs.70,000/- per month. Thus, the respondent/husband is capable of good financial condition and since it is his responsibility to maintain his wife which he has neglected, therefore, she claimed 20,000/- per month as maintenance by filing an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

4. Respondent has filed reply denying the allegations made in the application. It is also denied that there is land in his name and he is getting income of Rs.70,000/- per month from supplying of cement, iron and sand. It is also case of the respondent that the applicant/wife is capable of maintaining herself as she is working in the Honda showroom, therefore, denied the grant of maintenance. It is also denied that the respondent/husband used to torture her. On the contrary she was teasing him by saying that he is not good looking person. It has also been contended that he is working as daily wage employee and was earning Rs.150/- per day and would pray for rejection of the application.

5. The applicant to substantiate her claim has examined herself by way of an affidavit as required under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC wherein she has reiterated the stand which she has taken in the application and exhibited the Form B-1 Keshbandhi Katauni of the land wherein the land has been recorded in the name of Ramanij Thakur who is father of her husband. The applicant was cross examined by the respondent and in the cross examination it has been brought on record that the respondent’s family is having 15 acres of agricultural land and he has