Ashwini Manocha v. Kavita Manocha & Anr.

2. Thus, in the circumstances the impugned order granting maintenance in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to RespondentNo. 1 and Rs.5000/- per month to Respondent No. 2 is illegaland unjustified. The said order is hable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 were married according to Hindu rites and ceremonies onthe lO'^ June, 1998 and in the year 2001 a sonwas bomto them. It is alleged that soon after the marriagethe Respondent was harassed by the Petitioner and his family. It is alleged that the Petitioner used to demand money from the RespondentNo. 1 and curse her for bringing less dowry. It is alleged that the Petitioner failed to perform his duties, and due to his behavior became unemployed. Thereafter, she tried to report the matter to the local police however CrI.Rev.P. 453/2011 no action was taken, thereafter the Respondent No.l reported the matter to the Family Counselling Center on 16'^ March, 2002. Before the conciliation officer, the Petitionerherein assured the RespondentNo. 1 that he will mend his ways and will live peacefully with her. However the Petitioner did not comply with the assurance made. On 7^^ April, 2003 a criminal case vide FIR No. 232/2003 was registered at police station PS Govindpura, Bhopal under Section 498A IPC against the Petitioner and his family members, the trial wherein are still going on. It is further alleged that the Respondent No. 1 was deserted by the Petitioner in April, 2003 and since then the Petitioner has been neglecting to fulfill his responsibility towards Respondent No. 1. Thus, the Respondent filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance which petition was allowed and the order therein is impugned in the present petition. The Learned Judge vide the impugned order dated 23'^'' July, 2011 observed that the Respondent No. 1 was being harassed and tortured by the Petitioner and since 2003 the Petitioner herein has failed to perform his duties to maintain the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2. He has neglected his wife and son. Learned Judge after appreciating the evidence placed before him has rightly come to the conclusion that the Petitioner herein is in a position to pay maintenance to the Respondent. Respondent No. 1 has been living separately due to the acts ofthe Crl.Rev.P. 453/2011 L Petitioner and is legally entitled to the maintenance being his wife. As regards the quantum of maintenance, learned Judge after dealing with the contentions of the parties and going into the evidence produced before him observed that the Petitioner had received Rs. Four lacs of the sale consideration after the sale of the property at Shalcti Nagar at Bhopal and had been working in Toshila Resorts till

2002. The Petitioner also failed to prove on record as to when he left the job from Prakash Communication. Further the Petitioner admitted that since 2006 till the date of his examination he was working with M/s. Ashoka Towers Pvt. Ltd. Also no documents were placed on record by the Petitionerto show that he had paid the family loan as contended by him. He also did not place on record his bank statements thus warranting an adverse inference to be drawn. Thus keeping in mind the contradictions in the statement of Petitioner and contradictions qua the allegations made against the Respondent No. 1 the learned Judge observed that the Petitioner had sufficient means and was having the capacity to maintain his wife and son which he has willfially neglected to do. After going through the records i.e. school fee receipts and medical subscriptions learned Judge has rightly granted the maintenance to both Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2. In view of the above discussion, I fmd no illegality in the impugned order CrI.Rev.P. 453/2011 warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Petition and application are dismissed being devoid of any merit. " MUKTA GUPTA,J OCTOBER 10,2011 'dk'