1. The petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 783 of 2017 is the husband and the petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 1139 of 2017 is the wife. The spouses by way of these revisions are challenging the judgment dated 29.4.2017 passed in M.C. No. 413 of 2007 by the learned I Additional Family Court, Chennai.

2. The parties are referred to as per their rank before the learned I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, i.e., the husband is referred to as “the respondent” and the wife is referred to as “the petitioner”.

3. The facts as could be culled out from the order passed by the Court below are as under: The marriage between the petitioner/wife and the respondent/husband took place on 17.05.1995 at Rajasthan as per Hindu rites and customs. It is stated that at the time of marriage, the petitioner's father gave 700 grams of gold jewels, 5 Kg of silver vessels, wrist watch, luxurious items and household articles for the petitioner as stridhana. It is also stated that the petitioner's father spent about Rs.7 lakhs towards marriage. It was alleged that the respondent husband's family members informed her that they are not satisfied with the stridhana property. From the wedlock, no child was born to them. It is the allegation of the petitioner/wife that she was treated as a servant by the respondent husband and his family members and was beaten and abused using filthy language for getting further dowry and was sent to her parents house.

4. It was the further case of the petitioner/wife before the Court below that her neighbours knowing well about the ill-treatment she is being subjected to, lodged a police complaint and after police enquiry with the family members, it is stated that a separate residence was set up for the couple to live and even for that residence, it is stated that the petitioner's father provided fan, cot, fridge and other necessary articles. The trouble, it is stated, had not ended and the respondent/ husband continued to eat outside and not the food made by the petitioner/wife and on questioning, she was beaten.

5. In view of such behaviour of the respondent husband, it is stated that the petitioner/wife went to her matrimonial house and as a separate house was set up for them, the respondent's elder brother gave a complaint to the police to the effect that the said couple have no right to stay in their house. However, it is stated that after police interference, the couple continued to stay in the matrimonial house. The petitioner/ wife alleges that the treatment was worse, viz., she was subjected to more cruelty. The petitioner /wife lodged a police complaint against the respondent and his family members for dowry harassment and cruel treatment in C.C. No. 118 of 2003 before the learned Assistant Judicial Magistrate II, Jodhpur.

6. It is the case of the petitioner/wife that the gold jewels, silver articles and stridhana properties given at the time of marriage are still with the respondent/ husband and he is also doing business and earning Rs. 8 lakhs per month, apart from getting his share of Rs. 1 lakh from his parents house, but the respondent/husband has neglected to maintain the petitioner wife, who has no source of income to maintain herself.

7. In this premise, the petitioner/wife has filed the petition seeking maintenance claim under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code as against the respondent/ husband seeking maintenance of Rs. 30,000/- per month.

8. The above said allegations were refuted by the respondent husband stating that the petitioner/wife behaved cruelly with him and his family members and always used to be isolated, talking ill about them. It is his specific plea before the Court below that the petitioner/wife has not intention to stay with him and his family members and only wanted to harass them. He averred that the petitioner/wife deserted him on 1.9.2003 and at that time, she took all the personal belongings like jewellery, furniture, dresses, etc. with her. He denied his financial statu