Madhya Pradesh High Court
JUSTICE C.V. Sirpurkar
Pooja Gaur Vs. Umit @ Pinky Patel On 26 April 2016
Law Point:
Acquittal in criminal case — No specific allegations against husband alleging harassment for dowry — She left matrimonial home of her own accord — Wife is suffering from some mental issues for which she has undergone treatment — Cases instituted against husband under Sections 498A and 406, IPC by wife — Respondent-husband acquitted under Section 498A, IPC — Trial Court justified in holding that wife not entitled to stay away from her husband and claim maintenance.
JUDGEMENT
1. This criminal revision filed on behalf of the petitioner-wife is directed against the order dated 26.6.2015 passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hoshangabad, in Miscellaneous Case No. 39/2013, whereby, the application filed by petitioner-wife Pooja Gaur for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per month under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., was dismissed.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner married the respondent in February, 2012. Petitioner’s case before the Trial Court was that she lived at her matrimonial home till 2.2.2012. At the time of the marriage, a car, jewellery and household articles were given to the respondent in dowry. However, the respondent and his family members kept harassing the petitioner in connection with their demands for further amount of Rs. 2,00,000 in cash, by way of dowry. Due to aforesaid harassment and overwork, the petitioner fell ill. The respondent administered a tablet to the petitioner which led to further deterioration in her health. Thereafter, the respondent refused to get the petitioner treated. Consequently, petitioner’s father took her to her parental home on 2.2.2012 and got her treated. The petitioner is unable to maintain herself and she is at present studying in 2nd year of B.Com. The respondent earns Rs. 4 to 5 lacs per year from 32 acres of land owned by his family but he is neglecting to maintain the petitioner; therefore, it has been prayed that maintenance at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per month be awarded to the petitioner.
3. In reply the respondent has denied the allegations with regard to dowry harassment and he is stated that in fact the petitioner is mentally ill. Respondent got her treated by psychiatrists Dr. Tandon and Dr. Sahu at Bhopal. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father took her to her parental home to continue her treatment. The petitioner had filed a case under Section 498A against the respondent, in which he was acquitted. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another case under Section 406 of the IPC, which is pending. Thus, the petitioner is doing everything to harass the respondent. The respondent has further averred that he has moved an application for divorce, wherein he has been paying Rs. 1,500 per month to the petitioner by way of interim maintenance; therefore, it has been prayed that the petition be dismissed.
4. Learned Trial Court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove that she was subjected to dowry harassment. It was also held that though it has not been proved as to which specific mental illness the petitioner is suffering from but it has been proved that she is mentally ill and has undergone treatment for the same. It was also proved that the respondent has been acquitted in a case under Section 498A of the IPC instituted at the instance of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another criminal case under Section 406 of the IPC. A case of divorce has been filed by the respondent against the petitioner, wherein the respondent has been paying Rs. 1500 per month by way of interim maintenance. Learned Trial Court specifically held that there is nothing on record to prove that the respondent had expelled the petitioner from her matrimonial home. On the contrary, it was proved that the petitioner’s father took her, at her instance, to her parental home. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
5. The impugned order has been assailed on behalf of the petitioner-wife mainly on the ground that the inference drawn by the Trial Court to the effect that the petitioner suffered no dowry harassment and was not expelled from the matrimonial home by the respondent and his relatives, is unsustainable in view of the evidence on record.
6. It may be noted at the outset that in this revisionary jurisdiction, minute re-appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties as in an appeal, is not warranted. However, it appears from the evidence that though in examination-in-chief, the petitioner has levelled a general allegation of dowry harassment against the respondent, no specific allegation was made. Keshri Prasad (PW2), who is petitioner’s father, has stated that respondent and his family members harassed the petitioner for dowry and turned her out of her matrimonial home alleging that she is insane. They demanded a Bolero four wheeler and Rs. 2,00,000 in cash as condition precedent for accepting the petitioner back in her matrimonial home. However, aforesaid allegations are not supported by the petitioner herself. Keshri Prasad (PW2) also admitted in paragraph No. 5 of his cross-examination that the respondent has made no demand for dowry. He also admitted that his daughter was treated for mental ailment by Psychiatrists at Bhopal. The petitioner has also stated in her evidence that on 2.2.2012, she had called her father to take her to her parental home and the treatment was continued there. Keshri Prasad has also admitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in a case under Section 498A of the IPC and after the acquittal, the petitioner has filed another case under Section 406 of the IPC. He also admitted that the case for divorce is pending, wherein interim maintenance in the sum of Rs. 1,500 per month has been fixed.
7. On the basis of the evidence, principally on the basis of admissions made by the petitioner’s witnesses following interferences may be drawn:
(1)
The petitioner has failed to prove that she was subjected to dowry harassment.
(2)
She also failed to prove that she was expelled from her matrimonial home. On the contrary, it has been proved that she left her matrimonial home of her own accord.
(3)
She is suffering from some form of mental illness for which she has undergone treatment.
(4)
She had instituted cases under Sections 498A and 406 of the IPC against the respondent and the respondent has been acquitted of the offence under Section 498A of the IPC.
8. In aforesaid circumstances, learned Trial Court was justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to stay away from her husband and claim maintenance.
9. There are no grounds for interfering with the findings recorded by the Trial Court in the revisionary jurisdiction.
10. Consequently, this criminal revision deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment