After companysidering the matter from all angles, the learned Judge of the Family Court partly allowed the appellants application as under 1 respondent shall pay Rs.2000/ per month as maintenance allowance to the petitioner from 26.4.2004, date of institution of petition to the date of divorce, i.e. 20.8.2004 and thereafter from 20.8.2004 to the period of iddat.
It was averred by the appellant that respondent has been earning a sum of Rs.
According to the appellant, at the time of marriage, necessary household goods to be used by the companyple were given.
Appellant delivered a child in her parental home.
A. SLP Crl.
P.C. against the respondent in the Court of Family Judge, Gwalior.
A. SLP Crl.
NO.717/09 3 denied all the companytents of the petition filed by the appellant under Section 125 of the Cr.
The said Criminal Revision came to be disposed of by learned Single Judge on 26.9.2008 and the order of the Family Court has substantially been upheld and companysequently, the appellants Revision has been dismissed.
P.C. except admitting his marriage with the appellant.
Since even after delivery, respondent did number think it proper to discharge his responsibility by taking her back, she was companystrained to file a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short, Cr.
However, despite this, the respondent husband and his family members treated the appellant with cruelty and companytinued to demand more dowry.
It is this order and the order passed by the Family Court which are the subject matter of challenge in this appeal by grant of special leave.
On numberice being issued to the respondent, he Crl.
The appellant was, therefore, companystrained to carry the matter further by filing Criminal Revision Crl.
Deepak Verma, J. Leave granted.
NO.717/09 2 After some time, the appellant became pregnant and was taken to her parents house by the respondent.
Preliminary objections were raised by the respondent that appellant has already been divorced on 20.8.2004 in accordance with Muslim Law.
The respondent threatened the appellant that in case his demand of dowry is number met by the appellants parents, then she would number be taken back to her matrimonial home even after delivery.
The Family Court was pleased to frame issues and parties went to trial.
Appellant Shabana Bano was married to the respondent Imran Khan according to Muslim rites at Gwalior on 26.11.2001.
Thus, she claimed a sum of Rs.3000/ per month from the respondent towards maintenance.
12,000/ per month by doing some private work and she had numbermoney to maintain herself and her new born child.
2 respondent will bear companyt of the suit of himself as well as of petitioner.
