ORDER

1. By this common order, both the aforesaid criminal revisions are being decided.

2. Both the criminal revisions arise out of order dated 23.7.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhind (M.P.) in Case No.138/2017 MJCR by which application for grant of maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by Smt. Priyanka Rajawat has been rejected on the ground that she is residing separately without any reasonable reason whereas Virat Rajawat has been granted maintenance at the rate of 4,000/- per month.

3. Criminal Revision No.5206 of 2019 has been filed by Rahul Singh @ Vijay Singh Rajawat who is husband of respondent No.1-Smt. Priyanka Rajawat and father of respondent No.2-Virat Rajawat against maintenance amount awarded to his son respondent No.2-Virat Rajawat whereas Criminal Revision No.4107 of 2019 has been filed by Smt. Priyanka Rajawat and Virat Rajawat against the rejection of claim of applicant No.1-Smt. Priyanka Rajawat for maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C.

4. The facts of Criminal Revision No.5206 of 2019 shall be referred to.

5. The undisputed facts are that applicant- Rahul Singh @ Vijay Singh Rajawat and respondent No.1-Smt. Priyanka Rajawat are the legally wedded husband and wife whereas respondent No.2-Virat is the child born out of their wedlock. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed an application under section 125 of Cr.P.C. alleging that respondent No.1 and applicant got married on 30.4.2015 in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. It is the case of respondent No.1 that applicant as well as his family members were not satisfied with the dowry brought by her. They were alleging that a four wheeler vehicle was decided to be given in dowry which was not done. Accordingly, it was alleged that applicant and his family members were harassing her physically and mentally. Even after respondent No.1 got pregnant, still the cruelty did not come to an end. The entire expenses of delivery were borne by respondent No.1 and her family members. Panchayats were convened and accordingly for sometime respondent no.1 was kept properly but thereafter she was continuously harassed physically and mentally. On 23.5.2017 at about 06:00 pm when respondent No.1 was in her matrimonial house then her mother-in-law and father-in-law abused her filthily and after assaulting her by fists and blows turned her out of her matrimonial house along with her small child. It was alleged that respondent No.1 does not have any independent source of livelihood whereas applicant is working as Panchayat Secretary earning a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. Apart from that he is having land and house and accordingly, it was alleged that applicant is having monthly income of Rs.30,000-35,000/-.

6. Applicant- Rahul filed his reply and denied the allegations. It was alleged that in fact it was respondent No.1 who was creating all sorts of nuisance in the house. It was also stated that the delivery expenses were borne by applicant. It was further alleged that respondent No.1 had voluntarily left the house. On 14.1.2017 and on 4.6.2017, he also went to the house of parents of respondent No.1 to bring her back but she did not come back. Accordingly, it was alleged that he has filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.

7. The trial Court, after recording the statements of witnesses, rejected the application filed by respondent No.1 whereas allowed the application filed respondent No.2 and awarded Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance. The reason for rejecting the claim of respondent No.1 was that she was residing separately without any reasonable reason.

8. Challenging the order passed by the trial Court in granting monthly maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.2, it was submitted by counsel for applicant that since respondent No.1 is residing separately without any reasonable reason, therefore, respondent No.2 is also not entitled for maintenance, whereas in Criminal Revision No.4107 of 2019 it