Anita v. Amit

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J FEBRUARY 24, 2020 na

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL. REV. P. 515/2018 Reserved on : 05.02.2020 Decision on : 24.02.2020 IN THE MA TTER OF: ANITA ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Richa Dhawan, Standing Counsel with Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Advocate versus AMIT ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Radha Yadav and Mr. Shiva Rao, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI 1. The present petition is directed against the order dated 04.01.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi whereby the petitioner's application seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Family Court wrongly came to the conclusion that the petitioner's testimony in absence of any documentary evidence was unreliable. It was further contended that the Family Court erred in not recording a finding with respect to the income of the respondent and the maintenance sought by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and further submitted that the petitioner has passed Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) exam and is now capable of earning. It is further stated that the petitioner is more qualified than the respondent and can maintain herself. 4. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone through the case records. 5. As per the maintenance petition, the petitioner's marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 18.11.2011. The respondent used to demand a Santro car despite the fact that one motorcycle was given in the dowry along with an amount of Rs. 4 lacs in cash. The petitioner got pregnant in the month of July, 2013 and during her pregnancy, she was physically assaulted by the respondent and his family members, resulting in a miscarriage. The respondent and his family demanded dowry and physically assaulted her on various occasions. On 08.10.2013, the petitioner was beaten and thrown out of the matrimonial home. A complaint dated 02.04.2014, made to CAW Cell, was also placed on record. It was stated that the petitioner had to live separately as the respondent had deserted her and she had no other source of income. 6. The Family Court disbelieved the testimony of the petitioner on the ground that no documentary evidence was placed on record in support of her allegations. It was held that there was no cross- examination of the respondent on his claim that the petitioner had left the matrimonial home voluntarily. It was also held that the reliance placed by the respondent on the ultrasound examination report of the petitioner dated 26.08.2013, which did not suggest any pregnancy, remained unchallenged and unrebutted. 7. It is well settled by catena of judicial precedents that the provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code are for the welfare of the neglected wives, children and parents and that provisions should be construed liberally. 8. In the present case, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1. She stated that although for earlier acts of beating, no police complaint was filed but for the physical assault committed upon her on 08.10.2013, she filed a police complaint dated 02.04.2014 before the CAW Cell. It was further stated that after the aforesaid assault, she was thrown out of the matrimonial home due to which she started living at her parental house. The petitioner placed on record the aforementioned complaint filed with the CAW cell. 9. The respondent examined himself as RW-1 and deposed that the petitioner used to off and on leave the matrimonial home for going to her parental home and denied that there was any dowry demand or demand of Santro car. He placed on record the petitioner's ultrasound report of Sandhya Clinic & Ultrasound Centre and a report of Acopic Diagnostic & Ultrasound Centre where it was not mentioned that she was pregnant. 10. The entire thrust of the impugned order passed by the Family Court is that the petitioner did not cross-examine the responden