IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the husband's obligation to maintain his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution and vagrancy.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and Ms. Priyanka Devi Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. By means of this instant criminal revision instituted u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C., the revisionist has assailed the impugned judgement and order dated 06.05.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba in Case No. 263 of 2021 (Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Sunil @ Balendra) filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Khanna, District- Mahoba.

3. By the impugned judgement and order, the trial court has rejected the revisionist’s application for maintenance filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C.

4. Averment has been made by learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial court has passed the impugned order against the weight of the evidence on record and without application of judicial mind. It has also been submitted that in her matrimonial home, the revisionist was subjected to physical and mental harassment for coercing her to bring additional dowry from her parents. In this regard, a Panchayat was held between the relatives of the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 about 15 days earlier from filing of the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. but the opposite party no. 2 did not agree to keep her without fulfilling his demand of aforesaid additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. It has also been submitted that revisionist had instituted a complaint case against opposite party no. 2 and his family members for harassment and demand of dowry in which they were summoned by the trial court under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The revisionist had given oral and documentary evidence in this regard in the trial court but the trial court without considering it, rejected her application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that she is staying separately from her husband without any reason and she is not entitled for maintenance.

5. Per contra, averment has been made by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the trial court has considered the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto and has passed a legal order in which there is no ground for interference. It has next been submitted that since the revisionist is staying separately from her husband without any sufficient reason, her right to maintenance is barred u/s 125 (4) Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 have been heard. Perused the entire evidence present on the revision and the impugned judgement and order passed by the revisional court.

7. Both the parties have admitted in their pleadings that the revisionist was married to opposite party no. 2 on 09.12.2020 and after marriage, she stayed in her matrimonial home till March, 2021. In between, she visited her parental home for 2-3 times. The revisionist has no children from her marriage with opposite party no. 2. On the issue of the revisionist staying away from her husband in her paternal home, pleading has been made on behalf of the revisionist that in her matrimonial home, her husband and her in-laws used to physically and mentally harass her for bringing Rs.1,00,000/- in cash as additional dowry. When she failed to fulfil their demand for additional dowry after beating, they expelled her from her matrimonial home in March, 2021. Since then, she is living in her paternal home. It has also been pleaded that about 15 days before filing of application u/s 125 Cr.P.C., there was a Panchayat held between the relatives of the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 but the opposite party no. 2 refused to take her back to her matrimonial home unless his demand for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- cash was fulfilled.

8. The revisionist, P.W.1 Smt. Maya Devi and P.W.2 Kiran have corroborated the pleadings through their deposition in this regard. On the issue of revisionist staying away from opposite party no. 2, opposite party no. 2 in his written statement has pleaded that since revisionist is B.A. pass and he is o