An application for maintenance u/s 125 of the criminal procedure code 1973
(FOR A WIFE)
IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE FAMILY COURT,…………….
AT………………..
Maintenance Application No. ./ 2010
Smt. W . )
Age 25years, occupation – Nil, ) Applicant
Resident of C/o Shri DAD, )
MUMBAI 400011. )
Versus
Shri H )
Age 30 years, occupation – Service, ) Opponent
Resident of 1050 Sadashiv Peth, )
MUMBAI 400 030. )
AN APPLICATION FOR MAINTENANCE U/S 125 OF THE Cr. P.C. 1973
The applicant above named submits this petition, praying to state as follows:
1. That the applicant is the wife of the opponent, their marriage having been solemnized at Mumbai, on according to the Hindu religion, vaidic ceremonies and ceremonies.
2. That the applicant prior to the marriage was known by her maiden name as Kumari Urmila, while there is no change resulted in the name of the opponent.
3. That after the marriage, the applicant and the opponent cohabited and resided together for about two and a half years, and during this period, the opponent begot no child.
4. That since the applicant did not beget a child, the opponent started to ill-treat this applicant, and on a number of occasions, she was driven out of the matrimonial house, and then, the applicant had no other go but to stay with her parents against her and their wishes.
5. That the applicant and her parents tried their best to convince the opponent and his parents that the fault of not begetting a child does not lie on the applicant, but the opponent did not listen to the same and also did not allow this applicant to cohabit with him.
6. That the applicant submits that she has already undergone the necessary medical tests, and from the reports given by the specialized experts and doctors, it is confirmed that there is no fault on the part of the applicant for not begetting a child.
7. That the applicant also submits that she tried to go to the applicant for cohabitation on more than three occasions, but the opponent did not allow her to do so, and on the contrary, he finally told the applicant that she should never think of living and cohabiting with him anytime in future.
8. That the opponent is in the habit of consuming alcohol, and under the influence of drink and his parents besting the applicant up mercilessly.
9. That the applicant is, thus, forced to stay with her parents who are very poor.
10. That the applicant is illiterate and she is unable to maintain herself.
11. That the opponent is a doctor working at the Sassoon General Hospitals, Mumbai, and is drawing a salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month, and even though he has sufficient means, the opponent has refused and neglected to maintain this applicant, and hence, this applicant.
12. That the applicant also submits and states that the opponent has contracted marriage to another woman, one Vaishali, who is also working in the said Hospital as a Staff Nurse.
13. That the applicant also served upon the opponent a notice, on , calling upon him to pay unto the applicant a maintenance allowance @ Rs. 1,200/- per month, but the opponent has not done so, and hence this application.
14. That the applicant is residing within the local limits of the jurisdiction of this court, and hence, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try and decide this application.
15. That this application being chargeable with a fixed rate of court fee, the same is paid herewith.
16. That the applicant, therefore, prays that –
(A)This application be kindly allowed, and the opponent be ordered to pay unto this applicant maintenance allowance @ Rs. 1,200/- per month from the date of this application;
(B)The costs of this application be awarded from the opponent; and
(C) Any other orders in the interest of justice be kindly passed.
Mumbai, Sd/- W
Dated . APPLICANT
Sd/- xXx
ADVOCATE FOR APPLICANT
VERIFICATION
I, Smt. W, the present applicant, do hereby state on solemn affirmation that the contents of this application in paras 1 to 16 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, so I have signed hereunder.
Sd/- W
APPLICANT
Subject to the permission of the Court, as the parties shall not be allowed as of right to be represented by legal practitioners, vide the Family Court Act 1984.