The petitioner wife has filed this Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and challenged the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad, on 23.3.2011 in Maintenance Application No. 67 of 2010 refusing to grant education expenses of Rs. 32,000/- to her.
On 9.12.2005 marriage between the parties was solemnized according to the Hindu rites and the marriage was registered at office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandevi, on 13.1.2006. After the marriage, the respondent left the petitioner at her parental house. On 20.1.2006 the petitioner started to go to her matrimonial house with the respondent in his car but after staying at hotel at Pardi, the next morning the respondent refused to take the petitioner to her matrimonial house. The parents of the respondent demanded Rs. 1 lakh towards dowry but the petitioner refused to pay the dowry. The respondent treated her with physical cruelty and therefore, complaint at Valsad City Police Station was filed against the respondent. The petitioner also tried to commit suicide and therefore an offence was registered at Valsad City Police Station. The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. The respondent deserted her without any reason and has neglected to maintain her. Father of the respondent is employed at Reliable Paper Mills at Bardoli. The respondent is working as Manager in J.M. Engineering at Vapi and is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The respondent has income from agricultural operations and has no liability. The respondent has failed and neglected to maintain the petitioner. The petitioner is pursuing study in Hotel Management at Agra and has to incur expenses of Rs. 20,000/- towards monthly fee, book etc., tuition fee of Rs. 12,000/- over and above the expenses of food, shelter, medical etc. Therefore, the petitioner has filed application under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, to obtain maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month and to obtain Rs. 32,000/- towards educational expenses.
2. After hearing learned advocates for the parties and considering the evidence produced on record of the case, the trial Court awarded maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month and cost of Rs. 3000/- to the petitioner wife.
3. Being aggrieved by the said decision the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this Revision Application.
4. I have heard learned advocate Mr. Unwala for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Sojitra for the respondent at length and in great detail. I have also perused the impugned order.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Unwala for the petitioner submitted that the term maintenance includes educational expenses of wife. The petitioner wife is pursuing her studies and has incurred expenses for the same. Therefore, the trial Court while awarding the maintenance, was required to award the amount of educational expenses incurred by the petitioner but the trial Court did not award such amount and thereby committed error in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it. Therefore, the impugned order is required to be modified and amount of educational expenses are required to be awarded to the petitioner.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Sojitra for the respondent submitted that the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that she is pursuing study as claimed and has incurred expenses. Therefore, the trial Court did not commit any error in passing the impugned order and hence no interference is warranted in the impugned order.
7. As the petitioner has not challenged the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial Court, this Court is not required to go into the aspect of award of maintenance. The only challenge to the order is refusal to grant educational expenses of Rs. 32,000/-. It appears from the order that except oral evidence, the petitioner did not produce any documentary evidence to support her case that she is pursuing study in Hotel Management at Agra and she has incurred expenses towards tuition fees, books etc. Therefore, except oral evidence, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner has incurred expenses of Rs. 32,000/- towards education expenses and therefore she is not entitled for such amount. In absence of cogent and reliable documentary evidence, trial Court could not have awarded such amount. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in refusing to grant educational expenses of Rs. 32,000/- as claimed in the application. Learned advocate for the petitioner failed to point out that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence properly and committed error in not exercising jurisdiction vested in it. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in refusing to grant educational expenses to the petitioner. Therefore, the present Revision Application is required to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the Revision Application fails and stands dismissed. Notice stands discharged.
(BANKIM N. MEHTA, J) (pkn) Top