C.V. Sirpurkar ORDER
C.V. Sirpurkar, J.
1. This criminal revision filed on behalf of the revisionist wife Neetu Thakur, is directed against the order dated 5.4.2013 passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal in miscellaneous judicial case No. 425 of 2011, whereby the application of revisionist wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for maintenance, was partly allowed and maintenance in the sum of Rs. 2000/- each was granted to daughter Ritika and son Gaurav Thakur; however, maintenance to revisionist wife Neetu was rejected.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision may briefly be stated thus: Revisionist Neetu and respondent Laxmi Narayan were married on 9th February, 2000. Daughter Ritika and son Gaurav were born in the wedlock. As per revisionist's case, her parent gave household items worth Rs. 2,50,000/- by way of dowry at the time of marriage but the respondent husband started beating her from the wedding night itself for bringing inadequate dowry. Respondent husband used to level false imputations regarding her chastity. Her in-laws used to taunt and harass her in connection with their demand for dowry. Subsequently, the parents of the revisionist also gave a new motorcycle to the respondent in dowry. On 25.3.2011, revisionist Neetu was locked in a room and was severely beaten up. She was turned out of her matrimonial home along with children. The respondent threatened that if she would not bring Rs. 5 lacs in dowry, she would not be allowed to step inside her matrimonial home. The respondent also retained her Stridhan. She is living along with her parents. Respondent husband is a permanent employee in the Ordinance Factory at Itarsi. He earns Rs. 25,000/- per month along with other perks. The revisionist is unable to maintain herself and her children; therefore, it was prayed that the respondent be directed to pay maintenance in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the revisionist wife and Rs. 5000/- to the two children.
3. The respondent has opposed the application mainly on the grounds that the revisionist is a licentious women. After marriage, she developed illicit relations with one Satish Prajapati. She used to call aforesaid Satish Prajapati to her home whenever the respondent was out on night duty. On a number of occasions, the respondent surreptitiously saw them at night in compromising position. On 4.3.2010 and 26.3.2010 when the respondent out on night duty, the revisionist Neetu was found in compromising position with Satish Prajapati. On 26.3.2010, the guards on patrolling duty in ordinance factory, Itarsi, found the revisionist roaming around with Satish Prajapati on motorcycle. They were caught and released after admonition. Thus the revisionist was engaged in adultery. When the respondent used to stop the revisionist from maintaining relations with Satish Prajapati, she used to threaten to implicate him in false cases of dowry.
4. It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondent that the respondent had given a written complaint to his superiors in ordinance factory and police officers regarding the conduct of the revisionist. On 9.7.2010 an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed in the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge for divorce by mutual consent. In that application and the affidavit filed therewith, the revisionist has categorically admitted that there had never been any dispute between the parties regarding harassment for dowry. This application was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution. An application under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act for judicial separation was also filed on 25.10.2010 before Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad but this application was also dismissed for non-prosecution.
5. It has further been submitted on behalf of the respondent that on 19.2.2011 at about 9:30 p.m., the respondent was required to go for duty; therefore, he asked the revisionist to serve dinner. At that time, ........