Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Manjo Bai Raghuwanshi vs Jasrath Singh Raghuwanshi on 4 April, 2017

Author: G.S. Ahluwalia

Bench: G.S. Ahluwalia

                                         1       Cr.R. No.1059 of 2015

             HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      BENCH AT GWALIOR
                        SINGLE BENCH
                              PRESENT:
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. AHLUWALIA

             Criminal Revision No.1059 OF 2015
                     Manjo Bai Raghuvanshi
                                -Vs-
                 Jasrath Singh Raghuvanshi
__________________________________________________
     Shri Ajay Singh Raghuvanshi, counsel for the applicant.
     Shri D.S. Chauhan, counsel for the respondent.
__________________________________________________
                          ORDER

(04/04/2017) This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397, 401 of CrPC against the order dated 03.08.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ashok Nagar in M.J.C. No.75/2015 by which the application filed by the applicant against the respondent for grant of maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC has been rejected.

The necessary facts for the disposal for the present revision in short are that the applicant filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC alleging that she is married to the applicant as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. A boy has born out of the wedlock and the respondent has forcibly kept him. The ornaments as well as other articles which were given at the time of marriage have been kept by the respondent. After the marriage, the respondent and his family members were harassing and treating the applicant with cruelty because of less dowry. As the applicant belongs to rural environment, therefore, inspite of atrocities committed by her in-laws she continued to stay with the respondent. The respondent with an 2 Cr.R. No.1059 of 2015 intention to remarry and considering that the applicant is a simple lady, therefore, he kept her in village Myana and was also not making any arrangement for her livelihood, as a result of which, she came to her matrimonial house at Village Kakakhedi on 02.09.2014 where she was beaten by the respondent and his family members and was turned out of her matrimonial house. The applicant came back to her parental house and informed her father. Her father also tried to convince the respondent and his family members but they did not agree and her father and the family members of the applicant were turned out of her matrimonial house after insulting them. It was further stated that the respondent lives in a Joint Hindu Family and have 30 bighas of irrigated land. He is earning Rs.15 lacs per year. The applicant has no independent source of income. She has been deprived of love and affection of her child. Accordingly, the prayer for maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.7,000/- per month was made.

The respondent filed reply to the application and denied the allegations. He stated that the son is aged about 16 years and is studying in class 9 th. It was denied that any ornaments or articles were given at the time of marriage. It was alleged that as the financial condition of the father of the applicant was poor, therefore, the entire marriage expenses were spent by the maternal uncle of the applicant. The harassment because of demand of dowry was specifically denied. It was pleaded that in fact the applicant used to leave her matrimonial house without informing anybody and she was also not looking after her son. The respondent with an intention to make the future of his son shifted to Village Myana and took a room on rent. The applicant without informing anybody went along with two unknown persons to her parental house. On several occasions, he tried to bring her back but the 3 Cr.R. No.1059 of 2015 applicant refused to come back. It was further stated that he is residing separately in Village Myana and only three bighas of land comes to his share. It was further submitted that the respondent is ready and willing to keep the respondent as his wife.

The Family Court after recording the evidence of the witnesses rejected the application filed under Section 125 of CrPC on the ground that the applicant is residing separately without any sufficient reason.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 3.8.2015, the applicant has filed the present revision.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the Court below has committed a manifest error in holding that she is residing separately without any reasonable reason because it is the duty of the respondent to maintain his wife and if he was not fulfilling the minimum requirement for bare survival then the applicant was left with no other option but to leave her matrimonial house and to come back to her parental house. It is further submitted that even if the statement of Akash Raghuvanshi (D.W.2) who is son of the applicant is concerned, undisputedly, he is residing along with the respondent and is under his pressure, therefore, it cannot be said that whatever Akash Raghuvanshi (D.W.2) had stated, should be accepted as a gospel truth. It is further submitted that the respondent has not stated anywhere in his statement that he had made any efforts at any point of time to bring the applicant back to her matrimonial house.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the applicant on her own had left the matrimonial house and she do not want to reside with him in village Myana.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the court below.

The Trial Court has rejected the application under Section 125 of CrPC by giving too much of importance to certain omissions made in the statement of the applicant. Undisputedly, the parties are villagers and are residing in rural environment and, therefore, minor omissions in their evidence cannot be given undue advantage. However, on the basis of the evidence available on record, it appears that certain omissions have occurred in their evidence because of their backwardness. Undisputedly, the age of Akash Raghuvanshi (D.W.2) is 17 years. In the application filed under Section 125 of CrPC, the applicant had specifically stated that she is residing separately for the last about 1 year. However, in the examination in chief, she stated that she is residing separately for 13 years whereas her father, Halke Singh (P.W.2) had stated that the applicant is residing with him for last 5 years. If the evidence of the applicant (P.W.1) is read in the context of her cross-examination, it would be clear that the applicant left her matrimonial house about a year prior to filing of the application under Section 125 of CrPC. In cross-examination, a specific suggestion was given to the applicant by the respondent that about a year back she had left her matrimonial house without informing anybody and from thereafter she is residing with her parents. This suggestion was accepted by the applicant.

Jasrath Singh (D.W.1) has stated in his reply to the application under Section 125 of CrPC that the applicant has left her matrimonial house along with two unidentified persons and she is residing in her parents house. In reply, he has not clarified that when the applicant left her matrimonial house. However, in the evidence, he claimed that for about 7 months back, the applicant is residing separately. The applicant filed an application under Section 125 of CrPC on 10.09.2014 and the evidence of respondent Jagrath Singh (D.W.1) was 5 Cr.R. No.1059 of 2015 recorded on 25.06.2015. If the evidence of Jasrath Singh is interpreted then it would mean that according to him the applicant is residing separately from him for the last 7 months from the date on which his deposition was recorded whereas the application under Section 125 of CrPC was filed much prior to the period of 7 months. Thus, it is clear that even the respondent Jasrath Singh (D.W.1) has also not come forward with clean hands to tell the truth before the Court. His only contention is that he had never treated the applicant with cruelty and since the applicant does not want to reside with him in village Myana, therefore, she has left her matrimonial house. The applicant and the respondent belong to rural area. The applicant is also residing in a village along with her father. After the marriage, the applicant was residing with the respondent in village Kakakhedi and now the respondent claims to be residing in Village Myana. Thus, it is clear that at no point of time, either of the parties have resided in any town or metropolitan city. Thus, a person who belongs to rural environment and had resided in a village only, then it will not be possible to accept the contention of the respondent that as the applicant did not want to reside in Village Myana, therefore, she left her matrimonial house. On the contrary, it is the specific case of the applicant in her application under Section 125 of CrPC that as adequate arrangements for her livelihood were not being made by the respondent, therefore, she forced to leave her matrimonial house at Myana. Unfortunately none of the parties have given evidence in accordance with their pleadings. However, a suggestion was given in the cross-examination to the applicant that she left her matrimonial house about a year back without informing the respondent. The applicant has not only accepted that suggestion but clarified that as she was facing the situation of starvation and the respondent used to leave her alone, 6 Cr.R. No.1059 of 2015 therefore, she came back to her parents house.

Akash Raghuvanshi (D.W.2) has stated that the applicant is residing separately for the last 8 months. His evidence was also recorded on 25.06.2015, however, the applicant had filed the application under Section 125 of CrPC on 10.09.2014. Thus, it is clear that even this witness is not telling the truth, as his statement was recorded after about a month from the date of filing of the application under Section 125 of CrPC.

The case of the respondent Jasrath Singh (D.W.1) is that the applicant has left her matrimonial house without any reasonable reason. Jasrath Singh (D.W.1) has not stated in his evidence that he had ever made any attempt to bring the applicant back to her matrimonial house. Silence on the part of the respondent after the applicant left her matrimonial house clearly shows that the respondent was also at fault. Otherwise, he would have certainly made some efforts either by convening Panchayat or by going to the house of the parents to the applicant to bring her back. Even otherwise, the age of Akash Raghuvanshi (D.W.2) is 17 years which clearly shows that the marriage must have been performed atleast 18 years back. After spending so much of married life, it is not expected that a woman who belongs to rural area would reside separately from her husband without any reasonable reason. In absence of any effort on the part of the respondent to bring the applicant back clearly shows that the applicant was not residing separately without any reasonable reason and the allegation of the applicant that the respondent was not making adequate arrangement for her bare survival, cannot be said to be false.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Trial Court committed manifest error in holding that the applicant is residing separately without any sufficient reason.

So far as the question of maintenance is concerned, as this Court has already come to a conclusion that the parties belongs to rural area, therefore, considering the social status and the minimum wages which are prescribed for a labourer, this Court is of the view that an amount of Rs.2000/- per month by way of maintenance would be appropriate.

Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent shall pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to the applicant. The amount of maintenance shall be payable from 03.08.2015 i.e., the date on which the order was passed by the Family Court.

With the aforesaid observations, the revision is allowed.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) Judge (ra)