SMT. RUBINA BEE v. MOHAMMAD AARIF
Court: High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 2024-02-05. SMT. RUBINA BEE v. MOHAMMAD AARIF. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
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 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS MEVATI MOHALLA, NIMBAHEDA, DISTT. NIMBAHEDA (RAJASTHAN) ..... RESPONDENT (SHRI UPENDRA SINGH - ADVOCATE) T h is 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 Signing time: 05-02-2024 18:08:23 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 Signing time: 05-02-2024 18:08:23
Source: High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.