1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
th
ON THE 5 OF FEBRUARY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3404 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
SMT. RUBINA BEE W/O MOHAMMAD AARIF MEV,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSE WORK
H. NO. 36, VEDVYAS COLONY, P.S. DO BATTI, RATLAM
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI KAILASH CHANDRA KAUSHAL - ADVOCATE)
AND
MOHAMMAD AARIF S/O ANWAR MEV, AGED ABOUT 29
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS
MEVATI MOHALLA, NIMBAHEDA, DISTT. NIMBAHEDA
(RAJASTHAN)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI UPENDRA SINGH - ADVOCATE)
T h i s revision coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
The present revision petition is filed under section 19(4) of the Family
Court Act read with section 397/401 of Cr.P.C challenging the order dated
25.09.2017 passed by Family Court, Ratlam in Miscellaneous Criminal Case
No.110/2016, by which the application of the petitioner for grant of maintenance
under section 125 of Cr.P.C has been rejected.
2. The facts of the case are that the marriage (Nikah) between the
petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 24.12.2014. It is alleged that
after the marriage, the respondent started torturing the petitioner and also started
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 05-02-2024
18:08:23
2
beating her and therefore, she had gone to the house of her parents.
3. The trial court after appreciating the evidence, held that the petitioner,
who was examined as PW-1 has stated in her statement that she came to her
parent's house (Mayka) on 20.05.2015 and thereafter, she had gone to some
other place. His brother Junaid lodged missing person report Exb.D/1 dated
30.05.2015. The brother of the petitioner was examined as PW-2, who has
stated that he lodged a missing person report and the petitioner (her sister) had
gone alongwith with one Sonu Tak and the aforesaid fact has also been
admitted by petitioner PW/1 in para no.7 of her statement that after that she
appeared before the police station Shivgarh.
4. The trial court on evaluation of entire facts and evidence held that
since the petitioner could not prove that she was forcibly ousted by the
respondent from their house. On the contrary, it is proved that the petitioner
refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason.
5. In view of the provision of sub-section 4 of section 125, wife who is
living separately from her husband without any sufficient cause is not entitled
for maintenance. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order
impugned warranting any interference in the revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the present revision petition stands dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOURABH
YADAV
Signing time: 05-02-2024
18:08:23