Full Judgment
Cr.R.No.242/2009 21.3.2013 Shri A.P.Singh, counsel for the applicants.
Shri Manot Patel, counsel for the respondent.
The applicants have challenged the order dated 19.6.2008 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in MJ.No.42/2007 whereby a maintenance of Rs.1000/- was granted to the applicant no.2 but the maintenance application of the applicant no.1 was dismissed.
The facts of the case in short are that, the applicant no.1 was married with the respondent.
Some dispute between the parties arose during their life time after marriage.
It is apparent, that since November 2006 the applicant no.1 was residing away from the respondent.
She has moved an application under Section 125 of the C.P.C in the month of May, 2007.
Again a second application was filed in the month of March 2008 for grant of maintenance.
The respondent denied all the allegations.
After considering the evidence adduced by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal has dismissed the maintenance application of the applicant no.1.
After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the evidence adduced by parties the main contention of the applicant no.1 that she had a right to get maintenance by not living with the respondent whereas it is the contention of the respondent that the applicant no.1 could not get any maintenance since she was not living with him.
If entire evidence is considered then it would be apparent that the applicant no.1 resided with the respondent from time to time.
A dispute arose between the parties but after a compromise proceeding before the Pariwar ParamaRs.Kendre the matter was patched up and thereafter, the applicant no.1 was residing with her husband.
It is alleged by the applicant no.1 that the respondent left her to the house of her parents in the month of November 2006 whereas the respondent says that she left the house on her own.
It is apparent that the applicant no.1 left the house of the respondent in the month of November, 2006 and if she was thrown out of of the house by her husband then she should have lodged an FIR under Section 498-A of I.P.C against the respondent or should have taken steps against the respondent.
But it appears that no step was taken for one year thereafter.
Under such circumstances, it is clear that the applicant no.1 was the person who left the house of the husband without any reason.
There was no harassment from the side of the respondent otherwise a report had been lodged by the applicant no.1 against the respondent.
Under such circumstances, the applicant no.1 cannot get any maintenance amount without residing with the respondent and therefore, the Additional Principal Judge has rightly dismissed the maintenance application of the applicant no.1.
There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal.
Consequently, the present revision filed by the applicant is hereby dismissed in motion stage.
(N.K.Gupta) Judge bina