The court upheld the lower courts' decisions in denying maintenance to the wife due to her abandonment, while reiterating the father's duty to maintain daughters until marriage.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.1- State and Mr.Chintan Popat, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule for respondent No.2.

2. By filing this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure, the applicants have prayed to quash and set aside order dated 6.3.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Maliya Hatina, in Criminal Misc. Application No.165 of 2012 qua rejecting the maintenance to petitioner No.1. By way of amendment, it is prayed to quash and set aside order dated 21.2.2015 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval, District-Junagadh, in Criminal Revision Application No.7 of 2014 and also prayed to pay maintenance to applicants no.2 and 3 till they get married by quashing and setting aside order dated 6.3.2014 qua the age prescribed for maintenance.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that marriage of the applicant no.1 was solemnized with respondent no.2 on 17.11.2002 at Chorvad as per Hindu rituals. Respondent no.2- husband was used to torture applicant no.1 physically and mentally. On 3.9.2005, applicant no.1 gave birth to a baby girl due to which also the torture continued from the respondent side. Respondent no.2 was not willing to have a baby girl. On 16.10.2009, applicant no.1 gave birth to another baby girl, which fact was not even informed to her parents by the respondent. Respondent no.2 continued to beat applicant no.1 and broke her left hand finger and also injured her right leg knee. Respondent no.2 continued to give some medicines to applicant no.1, therefore, in 2011 second miscarriage had occurred. Due to continuous physical torture, on 12.8.2012, brother of applicant no.1 took her to her parental home. On 6.9.2012, applicant no.1 filed a complaint being II-

C.R.No.3220/2012 for the offence under Sections 498-A , 140 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code at Keshod Police Station, which is pending in the lower Court. In March 2014, applicant no.1 also filed an application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for maintenance, which was rejected qua maintenance to wife by order dated 6.3.2014. Applicant no.1 filed a revision application against aforesaid order, which also came to be rejected vide order dated 21.2.2015. Both the Courts denied maintenance to applicant no.1 on the ground that applicant no.1-wife has denied to stay with her husband. Being aggrieved by these orders, applicant no.1 has filed present application. As stated earlier, during the pendency of this application, draft amendment was moved seeking to addition of applicant nos.2 and 3 and also challenging the order granting maintenance to applicant nos.2 and 3 only till the age of their majority.

4. Heard Ms.Megha Chitalia, learned advocate for the applicants, Ms.Moxa Thakkar, learned APP for respondent No.1- State and Mr.Chintan Popat, learned advocate for respondent no.2 at length. Perused the material placed on record and considered the decisions cited at bar.

5. Ms.Megha Chitalia, learned advocate for the applicants has narrated the facts, which are narrated in the memo of the application. She has submitted that the Courts below have not considered the fact that applicant no.1 was tortured mentally and physically by her husband, and, therefore, she was not willing to go to her matrimonial house. She further submitted that there was threat to her life, therefore, applicant no.1 denied to go to her matrimonial house. She further submitted that applicant no.1 complained to her brother after ten years of marriage as the torture became unbearable. She also submitted that stateme