1. This criminal revision has been filed under section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act being aggrieved with the order passed by first Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in MJC No.447/14 on 5.12.2014.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on behalf of the applicants an application under section 125 of the CrPC alleging that after marriage of the applicant with the respondent on 6.5.2011, applicant No.2 was borne out of the said wedlock. It is stated that after marriage, respondent and his family members used to harass her for bringing less dowry. After birth of the daughter, atrocities were committed by respondent and his family members became intolerable. Applicant started residing at Ratlam in the house of her maternal aunt. Respondent told the applicant that he would come to bring her back, but he did not come. Parents of the applicant sent the applicant to her matrimonial home, but the behaviour of the respondent and his family members was not changed. On 2.3.2013, sister-in-law of the applicant gave beating and also thrown her daughter when she was suffering from pneumonia. It is further alleged that sister-in-law of the applicant also broke the mobile and gave beating to the applicant and turned out her. False report was lodged against the applicant and she was called to police station where respondent gave in writing to keep the applicant with him, but he did not come. Applicants are residing in their parents home and having no source of income.

3. In reply, respondent denied the allegations of harassment. It is stated that applicant No.1 quarelled with the respondent and insisted to go to her parents house every 10-15 days. Applicant No.1 also insisted that respondent should get his share in property and reside separately. Respondent has separated his father and brothers, but applicant No.1 was insisting to separate his mother, otherwise she would commit suicide. From 3.3.2013, applicant started residing with her parents. On account of death of grand mother of the applicant, respondent asked the applicant to go alone and after getting leave he would come, but applicant No.1 started quarelling with him and also threatened to commit suicide. Respondent has lodged the report that applicant No.1 went to Indore. It is further stated that at Mahila Police Station, applicant No.1 was called, thereafter, applicant No.1 started residing with respondent, but on 3.3.2013, she went to Indore after quarreling with the respondent. Respondent has given notice, but no reply has been given. Applicant No.1 is doing private job, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application. After recording the evidence of applicant and respondent, learned trial Court dismissed the application holding that it is not proved that applicant is residing separately with sufficient reason. Being aggrieved, this petition has been preferred.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that learned trial Court has committed illegality in rejecting the application. Applicant and his witnesses have categorically stated that applicant No.1 was misbehaved and ill treated in the matrimonial home. Learned trial Court failed to consider that applicant has gone to live with respondent, but again she was ill treated. There is sufficient reason for residing separately. It is further stated that applicant has lost the job and now she has no source of income. Respondent has sufficient means. Hence, applicant is entitled to get maintenance.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that learned trial Court rightly held that applicant has sufficient reason to live separately. Hence, she is entitled to get maintenance.

6. Applicant has also filed an application I.A. No.1794/16 under Order 41 rule 27 r/w section 151 of the CPC, wherein it is stated that respondent has filed a petition for divorce, in which statement of respondent has been recorded and applicant