1. This revision under section 19(4) Family Courts Act, 1984 read with section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) has been filed by the applicant/wife against the order dated 21.12.2010, passed in M.J.C. No.361/2009, by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur, wherein learned Family Court rejected the application for grant of maintenance amount.

The brown fox jumps over the laxy dog.

2. The applicant had filed an application under the provisions of section 125 of the Code, contending that the marriage between the applicant and the respondent was solemnized on 13.5.1952 at Barela, Jabalpur as per the Hindu rites and rituals. Six sons and one daughter were born out of the wedlock and all children got married and are living happily with their family separately. The behavior of the respondent was cruel-some, hence, the applicant was living separately since 2006. The respondent used to give some maintenance amount to survive the applicant but from the month of February, 2009 the respondent stopped to give any amount on account of wrong advise of her son Ramkumar and his wife Saraswati. Due to weaker financial condition, the applicant filed an application for maintenance before learned Family Court, Jabalpur.

3. Respondent entered his appearance by filing reply and submitted that the marriage of applicant was solemnized with Kapoorchand, elder brother of the respondent. After death of Kapoorchand the applicant was alone unable to survive, hence, the respondent has allowed to the applicant to live with him. Thereafter, children were born. The applicant without any reason left the house of the respondent and was living with her son Santosh Namdeo and never turned up, therefore, the application filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed.

4. Learned Family Court dismissed the application, hence, being aggrieved by impugned order this revision is preferred by the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is old and infirm lady and living alone and having no source of income. It is further submitted that applicant having sufficient source of income which is proved by filing sufficient documentary evidence regarding income of the respondent who is willingly denying her maintenance, hence, prayed for grant of maintenance amount.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the above made submissions on the ground that the applicant left the house of the respondent on her own will without any justified reason with her son Santosh Namdeo, therefore, this revision requires to be dismissed.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and after perusal of the available record carefully, this Court is of the opinion of this application deserves to be allowed.

8. This fact is not disputed the applicant is legally wedded wife of the respondent and the couple blessed with seven children.

9. Learned Family Court after marshaling of evidence putforth before him by the parties and after elaborate discussions of depositions of witnesses; particularly admissions of applicant Ram Pyari Bai (PW1) rejected the application, observing that :-

**fopkjk/khu ekeys esa mHk; i{k dh lk{; dks ;fn lw{erkiwoZd ns[kk tk, rks ;g izdV gksrk gS fd okLro esa vkosfndk ds le{k Hkj.k iks"k.k dh vFkkZr Lo;a ds xqtkjs dh dksbZ leL;k ugha gSA vfirq fookn mHk; i{k dh larkuksa }kjk mHk; i{k dks vkM+ cukdj mRiUu fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj nqHkkZX;iw.kZ ;g gS fd ekrk&firk gksrs gq;s Hkh mHk; i{kdkj viuh larkuksa ds cgdkosa esa vkdj bl o`)koLFkk esa ,d nwljs ds f[kykQ U;k;ky; esa [kM+s gksus ds fy;s ck/; gSaA ;g vR;ar nqHkkZX;iw.kZ fLFkfr gSA mHk; i{k dh 8 larkusa gksrs gq;s Hkh vkosfndk us vukosnd ds fo#) Hkj.kiks"k.k dk nkok izLrqr dj mlls Hkj.kiks"k.k dh jkf'k pkgh gS tcfd mlus ;g Lohdkj fd;k gS fd og vius NksVs iq= larks"k ds lkFk fuokl djrh gSA mldk [kkuk [kpkZ] nok&nk: rFkk vU; Åijh [kpkZ Hkh larks"k ogu djrk gSA

oLrqr% /kkjk 125 na-iz-la- dk