Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 2 docs
The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 125 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973

User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Savita Bai vs Prahlad Judgement Given By: ... on 1 October, 2013

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR

M.Cr.C. No.7660/2005

Savita Bai

Vs.

Prahlad

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Gupta.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of counsel for the parties:

Shri P.D. Gupta, counsel for the applicant.

Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, counsel for the respondent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER

(Passed on 1st day of October, 2013)

The applicant has filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12.7.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadarwara in M.Cr.C. No.94/02, whereby the maintenance application filed by the applicant was dismissed. The applicant has also challenged the order dated 1.8.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadarwara in Criminal Revision No.16/05, whereby her revision against the order passed by the J.M.F.C. was also dismissed.

2. Facts of the case, in short are that, the applicant had moved an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the 2 M.Cr.C. No.7660/2005

J.M.F.C. Gadarwara with the pretext that her marriage took place with the respondent in the year 2001. In her marriage, T.V. fan, watch, bicycle and a cash of `10,000/- were given to the respondent. She was kept for eight days with the respondent and she was harassed for dowry demand etc. a satire made upon her that her father was not a reputed person. One Moped and a sum of `10,000/- was demanded from her. Her ornaments were taken by the family members of the respondent and she was sent to her parents' house and thereafter, she is residing with her parents therefore, by computation her dependency and income of the respondent, an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was filed to get the maintenance of `2500/-.

3. The respondent in the reply has submitted that, he was a labourer and he did not require any Moped etc. The applicant resided only for eight days and thereafter, left the house of the respondent without any reason. The respondent took several steps to bring her back but ultimately, a divorce took place between the parties according to their customary provisions. The applicant left the respondent's house on her own and therefore, she could not get any maintenance. Under such circumstances, it was prayed that the application of the applicant may be dismissed.

4. The learned J.M.F.C. after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties found that the applicant had no reason to get the maintenance without living with the respondent and 3 M.Cr.C. No.7660/2005

therefore, the application was dismissed. The revision filed by the applicant was also dismissed on 1.8.2005.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that within eight days of her marriage, the applicant was ousted and no steps were taken by the respondent to bring her back. No divorce took place between the parties, because no decree of divorce has been filed by the respondent. Both the Courts below have committed an error in not granting the maintenance to the applicant. It is submitted that the statement of the applicant would have been accepted. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the applicant placed his reliance upon the order passed by the Single Bench of this Court in the case of "Dalibai Vs. Rajendra Singh" [2006(1) M.P.L.J. 495] and a reliance has also been placed to the order passed by the Gauhati High Court in the case of "Smt. Bishnupriya Sutradhar Vs. Nipendra Sutradhar" [2012 Cri. L.J. 1796] therefore it is prayed that a proper maintenance may be granted to the applicant.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the applicant left the respondent's house within eight days of her marriage and it was not possible in those eight days that she could be harassed for dowry demand etc. Thereafter, she did not come back to the respondent's house and therefore, it is prayed that the petition filed by the applicant may be dismissed.

7. After considering the submissions made by learned 4 M.Cr.C. No.7660/2005

counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid orders relied by the learned counsel for the applicant can be applied in the present case, if the factual position appears to be similar to the factual position in those cases. In this case, it is admitted that the applicant resided in the respondent's house only for eight days and it is practicably impossible that in first eight days of her marriage, she could have been harassed for dowry demand etc. and she would have ousted from the respondent's house. Savita Bai (PW-1) has accepted in para 5 (after the para no.3, no para number is given by the learned J.M.F.C., however para 5 is mentioned by counting) of her cross- examination that she was taken by her brother to her parents' house, which indicates that she was not thrown with force. She was suggested that she was taken to the respondent's house after a month and after residing a day, she was sent back to her parents' house according to her wishes. Though, she did not accept the suggestion given by learned counsel for the respondent. However, she has accepted that one Munna Lal Thakur resident of village Baraj took her from the house of the respondent to her parents' house. When she did not visit the house of the respondent for second time then, it was not possible for Munna Lal to take her back to her parents house because in her first returned visit, her brother took her to her parents house. In the second visit, what had happened in the single night so that the applicant demanded 5 M.Cr.C. No.7660/2005

to go back to her parents house. It is not told by the applicant.

8. In para 8 of her statement, she has accepted that Damyanti Bai was Sarpanch in her village. When she visited to back her parents house, the respondent Prahlad, his father Battu Lal and her brother-in-law Lakhan Lal came to the village of the applicant to talk with Sarpanch etc. She has accepted that in her house, Prahlad etc. had called Chandrabhushan, Tajram, Khetsingh etc. and a Panchayat took place in which, the Panchayat directed the father of the applicant to send the applicant to the respondent's house. If the applicant would have harassed for dowry demand etc. then, the Panchayat would have decided in favour of the applicant and a guarantee of her safety would have been sought by the Panchayat from the respondent and his relatives. Under such circumstances, by the evidence of herself, it is apparent that no harassment took place with the applicant in the respondent's house in first eight days and thereafter in one day, when she visited the respondent's house for the second time.

9. Under such circumstances, it would be apparent that the applicant has no reason, for her denial to reside with the respondent. It is alleged that the respondent did not take any steps to bring the applicant to his house. However, in para 9 of her statement, the applicant has accepted that the respondent and his family members came to her house to call for a Panchayat to take her back, but she did not go to the house of the respondent. Under 6 M.Cr.C. No.7660/2005

such circumstances, the applicant had no reason to get any maintenance from the respondent, whereas she has no any reason, to live separately and not to reside with him. The learned J.M.F.C. as well as the revisionary Court has rightly dismissed the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant. In the present case, the orders passed in the cases of Dalibai (supra) and Smt. Bishnupriya Sutradhar (supra) cannot be applied due to different factual position in the case.

10. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, there is no ground to accept the present petition filed by the applicant. No infirmity or illegality is visible in the orders passed by both the Courts below. Consequently, the orders passed by both the Courts below are hereby confirmed. No order as to costs.

11. Copy of the order be sent to both the Courts below alongwith their records for information and compliance. (N.K. GUPTA)

JUDGE

01.10.2013

pnkj