Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sandhya Kumari vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 August, 2018
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 48
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9351 of 2017
Applicant :- Smt. Sandhya Kumari
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Prakash Mishra,Ashutosh Pandey,Chandrakesh Mishra,Daya Shankar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandrakesh Mishra,Daya Shankar Mishra
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 3.11.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Basti in case No.224/11/15 Smt. Sandhya Kumari vs. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Lalganj, Basti.
List has been revised. Despite repeated calls none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2. Shri Ashutosh Pandey learned counsel for the applicant is present along with learned AGA. The record shows that notice has been served on opposite party no.2 and there is reason to presume that due information about the proceedings has been furnished to opposite party no.2 and, therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to decide the matter on merits.
Heard Shri Ashutosh Pandey learned applicant's counsel and learned A.G.A. Record has been perused.
Submission of the counsel is that the impugned order is suffering from manifest error in the mode of appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case. The plea raised on behalf of opposite party was that the applicant was never his wife but was a mental patient and he is prepared to return back all the gifts that were given to him. It has been specifically noted in the impugned order that the opposite party is prepared to return rupees four lakhs to applicant. It has also been noted in the impugned order that the objection raised on behalf of opposite party contains the plea that the applicant Smt. Sandhya Kumari had come in his house as a bedecked bride but after she arrived in her matrimonial home she turned unconscious. The plea projected on behalf of opposite party was that fraud had been played upon him and it was on that basis that he pleaded himself being not the husband of the applicant. Submission is that such a plea as has been raised is almost preposterous in nature. If a lady bedecked as bride comes to the house of somebody and huge gifts which are amounting to not less than rupees four lakhs have already been given, it is wholly inconceivable as to how the plea of denial raised on behalf of opposite party was found tenable by the court which attempted to show that the opposite party was not the husband. It is beyond comprehension as to how and in what capacity had he accepted such huge amount of gifts and if he was not husband how and in what connection applicant had come to his house bedecked as a bride? The submission is that plea and the objections raised on behalf of opposite party are bordering on absurdity and what is more surprising is that such pleas have been held to be tenable and have been made a ground to refuse interim maintenance which was so urgently needed in order to provide some kind of succour to the applicant. Submission is that the interim order contains elements of perversity and therefore deserves to be quashed as such. It was submitted that the applicant is not having sufficient means to maintain herself and as it is an admitted situation that opposite party is not prepared to accept her as his wife and he is not at all providing anything for her maintenance the applicant has been driven to vagrancy and the very object of relief intended by legislation has been denied to her.
This Court does not proposed to give any detailed findings about the merits of the case lest it may cause prejudice to the either side. Suffice it to say that provisions of section 125 Cr.P.C. are beneficial provisions and are basically meant to give some sort of succour to certain category of persons who have the right to be maintained. The refusal of the husband to maintain his wife is one such category. The provisions to provide interim maintenance relates to the area of the judicial discretion of the court below but when it is said that it is judicial discretion it is presumed that the same has to be exercised reasonably and with a judicial conscience inspiring the same. The judicial discretion can never be arbitrary or unreasonable against the facts and circumstances of the case. The least which can be said about the order impugned is that it lacks judicious elements. It is apparent on the face of record that huge amounts of gifts were given which had got to be in connection with marriage and the applicant had gone to her matrimonial home where she is said to have turned unconscious. She having gone to the house of opposite party as his wife has been virtually admitted and the plea denying her status as wife is simply unacceptable being wholly unnatural and against the telling circumstances of the case and even more telling admissions contained in the objections raised on behalf of opposite party.
In such circumstances, this Court deems it proper in order to meet the ends of the justice that the impugned order should be quashed. The court below is directed to give a fresh look to the circumstances of the case and pass fresh orders in the light of the observations laid herein before in this order. The same therefore, is hereby quashed.
The application stands allowed.
A copy of this order be certified to the lower court forthwith.
Order Date :- 8.8.2018
shiv
