Received on : 19/07/2014

Registered on : 19/07/2014
Decided on : 16/01/2016
Duration :
Year Month Days

Exh. ____
-------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF HONOURABLE JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, VADODARA,
DIST. VADODARA.
-------------------------------------------------
Cr. Misc. Appli.
No. 650 of 2014
----------------
APPLICANT

1. Nisaben @ Gungun Raja Talreja

Age : Adult
Occupation : Housewife

2. Minor Shivam Raja Talreja

Age : 2
Occupation : --

(Both applicants : Old G-Ward,

NR. Rajaveer, Kubernagar, Ahmedabad
At present : Vaswani Colony,
Opp. T/13, Beside Narubhai Dukanwala,
Sant-cover colony, Warasia,
At Vadodara.

Versus

OPPONENT

Raja Hareshlal Talreja

Age : --
Occupation : --
Residing at : Zulelal Apartment,
Ground Floor,
Beside Chandni Tailor,
Ramnagar, Rander, at Surat
-------------------------------------------------
Ld. Adv. C.R.Griglani : For the applicants
Opponent has appeared in person
-------------------------------------------------
Application under Sec.
125 of Cr.P.C.

: JUDGMENT ;

1. The applicant-wife has moved this application

under section 125 of Cr.P.C. to obtain the
maintenance from her husband i.e. present
opponent.
 2 Cr.Misc.Appli.650/14

2. The applicant has come with her case that her

marriage was solemnized with the present
opponent on 01/05/2011, at Surat as per the
customs of Hindu community, thus, she is the
legally wedded wife of the opponent. It is
stated by the applicant-wife that initially she
was treated well, hence, due to her happy
married life with the opponent, she gave birth
to a male child i.e. present applicant No.2
from the wedlock of the opponent. It is
alleged by the applicant that with the passage
of time opponent started subjecting physical &
mental cruelty to the applicant, and he was not
only the applicant in pent situation, but, also
demanding dowry by way of cash, ornaments etc.,
from her parents, and whenever the applicant
failed to bring demanded and required things,
the opponent used to beat her severely.
Ultimately, after subjecting physical cruelty
and after keeping with him utensils, stree-
dhan, ornaments etc., the opponent has not only
deserted the applicant No.1 along with her son
i.e. present applicant No.2, but, also
threatened that he would bring an end of the
applicant No.1 by killing her, if, she would
try to return to his home. As per the alleged
contention of the applicant she is not liking
to opponent, and opponent wanting to marry with
another lady by giving the applicant divorce.
It is alleged by the applicant that since her
desertion, the opponent-husband has neither
taken any care of applicants nor made any
provisions for the maintenance of the
applicants. Therefore, the applicant-wife has
to spend her days forlornly with her son i.e.
the applicant No.2, and at present she has no
source of income to run livelihood of herself
and her son, without any support of the
opponent-husband. Whereas, present opponent
 3 Cr.Misc.Appli.650/14

possesses his own auto-rickshaw, in Surat City,

and being earned monthly Rs.30,000/-, and
father of the opponent is also earning monthly
Rs.10,000/- by doing private job. This way,
except present applicants, the opponent has no
liability to maintain anybody else. Thus, by
filing present application the applicant has
sought the relief that the Court may kindly be
directed the opponent to pay applicant No.1
Rs.10,000/- & Rs.5,000/- per month towards the
maintenance for herself and her son i.e. for
the applicant No.2.

3. In response of the notice issued by the Court,

though, the opponent has appeared before the
Court through his learned Advocate, but, he has
not filed written statement against the
applicants application, despite ample
opportunities provided him to file the same,
ultimately, the Court has closed the right of
the opponent to submit his written statement.
Similarly, though sufficient opportunities
provided to the opponent to submit his
evidence, but, as the opponent is failed to
produced his evidence, hence, Court has also
closed the right of the opponent to submit his
evidence. In the present matter, the opponent
has neither cross examined the applicant nor
submitted his arguments. The applicant has
submitted her examination in chief in the form
of affidavit vide exh.9. The applicant has
also submitted her written arguments vide
exh.11.

4. The applicant has filed her affidavit vide

exh.9, and except her affidavit no any other
evidence is placed by the applicant with regard
to the opponents income. vis. a vis. the
opponent has neither challenged the contentions
of the applicants application regarding
 4 Cr.Misc.Appli.650/14

allegations leveled by her against the opponent

in respect of mental & physical cruelty and
dowry demand, nor the applicants contentions
are rebutted by the opponent in any manner.
Moreover, for the sake of moment it can be
presumed that though, the opponent has not
challenged the contentions of the applicants
application (supported by the applicant by
filing affidavit), and he could have been cross
examined the applicant, but, he has not done
so, then in that case, an adverse inference may
be drawn against the opponent that whatever
contentions alleged by the applicant can be
said true. No doubt, the opponent has appeared
before the Court through his learned Advocate,
but, even in the proceeding also he has neither
challenged the source of income as alleged by
the applicant, nor the opponent has produced
any documentary evidence to rebut the
contention of his source of income. Being the
litigant in any proceeding in the Court of law,
if, the opposite party alleged the contentions
of his/ her application or petition then in
that case, the party against whom the
allegations made, has kept his mouth shut then
it can be presumed that whatever allegations
raised by the applicant in her/ his application
or petition, are accepted by the party against
whom the allegations made.

In the present case, contentions of the

applicants application are supported by the
applicants affidavit vide exh.9, hence, on
going through the un-challenged contentions of
the applicant (supported by her affidavit), it
can be said that after subjecting physical &
mental cruelty, the applicant was deserted by
the opponent from his house without any
reasonable cause or excuse and at present the
 5 Cr.Misc.Appli.650/14

applicant has been spending her days forlornly

at her parents house, without any source of
income. Any person can be believed that any
wedded lady, who, has no source of income,
spends her days forlornly and that too without
the support of her husband, requires
maintenance to run her livelihood. On the
contrary, it is the duty of the opponent-
husband to make provision for the maintenance
of the applicant-wife, and here, the opponent
has not made any provision for the maintenance
of the applicant-wife & applicant No.2 (son).
Therefore, considering the nature of profession
of the opponent, present dearness and
considering the price index of life supporting
commodities, in the present case, I am of the
opinion that if, the opponent be directed to
pay to the applicant-wife Rs.3,000/- per month
& Rs.2,500/- per month towards the maintenance
of herself and towards the maintenance of the
applicant No.2, then it would be appropriate in
the interest of justice. Hence, I pass the
following order.
: O R D E R :

1. The application moved by and on behalf of the

applicant under section 125 of Cr.P.C. is
allowed.

2. The opponent is ordered to pay to the applicant

No.1 i.e. wife Rs.3,000/- per month &
Rs.2,500/- per month towards the maintenance
w.e.f. the date of the application
i.e.19/7/2014.

3. The opponent is further ordered to pay

Rs.2,000/- to the applicant-wife to meet the
expenses of the present proceedings.
 6 Cr.Misc.Appli.650/14

Pronounced today on this 16th day of

January, 2016 in the open Court, at Vadodara.

Date : 16-01-2016 (PATEL KANUBHAI SHANKERBHAI)

Place : Vadodara J U D G E
FAMILY COURT, VADODARA
GJ 00266
Nilesh Ajmeri