Monu Rajendra Marothiya vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 7924 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 83
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3206 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Monu Rajendra Marothiya
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Arjun Singh Solanki
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

Heard Mr. Arjun Singh Solanki, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State.

Perused the record.

This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging judgment and order dated 15.01.2020 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj in Application No. 264 of 2019 (Smt. Bandana and others vs. Monu Marothiya) whereby aforesaid application has been allowed and revisionist has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 4000/- to opposite party 2, Smt. Bandana and Rs.1000/- each to opposite parties 3 and 4 till they attain majority.

Record shows that marriage of revisionist was solemnized with opposite party-2 on 10.05.2014 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. From the aforesaid wedlock two children namely Kumari Arushi and Kumari Chhavi were born. However, it appears that relationship between revisionist and opposite party 2 became strained on account of marital discord as well as for demand of dowry. As revisionist failed to maintain opposite party 2 i.e. his wife as well as opposite parties 3 and 4 his minor daughters, opposite party 2 along with her minor daughters. Opposite party 2 was forced to leave her marital home and since July 2018, she along with her minor daughters is residing at her parental house.

Faced with despair and destitution, opposite party 2 for herself and on behalf of opposite parties 3 and 4 filed an application dated 18.01.2019, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- for herself and Rs. 5000/- each for her minor daughters i.e. a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Perusal of application dated 18.01.2019 (annexure 1 to the affidavit) goes to show that opposite party 2 in her application has categorically stated that she is legally wedded wife of revisionist. From the wedlock of revisionist and opposite party 2, two children were born. However, revisionist has failed to discharge his obligations as faithful husband and a cairing father towards opposite parties 2, 3 and 4. Revisionist neglected opposite parties. Opposite party 2 was mentally and physically tortured for demand of dowry. Consequently, when things became unbearable, opposite party 2 along with her minor children left her marital home and started residing at her parental home from July 2018. Opposite party 2 further alleged that since she does not have sufficient means to maintain herself as well as her minor daughters, revisionist is liable to be directed to pay maintenance to opposite party 2 and her minor daughters.

Above application filed by opposite party 2 and others was opposed by revisionist. He accordingly filed his objections (paper no.11A-1 to 11A-5). Allegations made in the application were denied. It was further alleged that proceedings under Section 125 have been initiated by opposite party 2 at the behest of her parents. Opposite party 2 along with minor daughters is residing separately without any sufficient cause. Opposite party 2 was never subjected to cruelty physical or mental nor any demand of dowry was made. Opposite party 2 has sufficient means to maintain herself as well as the minor daughters, therefore, opposite party 2 is not entitled to any maintenance from revisionist.

After exchange of pleadings parties went to trial. Opposite party 2 in support of her case adduced herself as APW1 and also filed documentary evidence which has been duly mentioned at page-5 of certified copy of impugned order dated 15.01.2020. Similarly revisionist in support of his defence adduced himself as DW1 but did not file any documentary evidence.

In order to effectively decide the dispute, court below framed following points of determination :

(1) Whether opposite party 2, Smt. Bandana (applicant) is legally wedded wife of revisionist Monu Marothiya and whether applicant that is opposite party 2 along with Kumari Arushi and Kumari Chhavi, who are minor daughters are residing separately on valid and sufficient grounds and opposite party 2 (applicant) is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughters, whereas revisionist who is a man of sufficient means has ignored opposite party 2 (applicant) and his minor daughters.

(2) Whether opposite party 2 (applicant) is residing separately from revisionist on sufficient grounds.

(3) Whether opposite party 2 (applicant) has no source of income for maintaining herself and her minor daughters whereas revisionist is a man of sufficient means.

(4) Whether revisionist has failed to maintain opposite party 2 (applicant) and ignored her.

(5) From what date is opposite party 2 (applicant) is entitled to receive maintenance.

All the issues noted above were decided by court below in favour of opposite party 2 (applicant). On the strength of findings returned on each of the issues so framed court below concluded that revisionist is liable to pay maintenance to opposite party 2 (applicant) as well as opposite parties 3 and 4 who had joined opposite party 2 (applicant), at the rate of Rs. 4000/- and Rs. 1000/- each in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4 from the date of application i.e.11.01.2019. However, the payment of maintenance in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4 was limited up to the date of them attaining majority.

Learned counsel for applicant has tried to impress upon the Court by submitting that impugned order is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. He further contends that from material brought on record, it is established that opposite party 2 along with minor daughters has been residing separately without any valid and sufficient ground. He also contends that maintenance awarded by court below is excessive. Consequently present application is liable to be allowed.

Per contra learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. He contends that findings recorded by court below are findings of fact which cannot be interferred unless they are shown to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. No illegality or perversity could be established in respect of the findings recorded by court below. It is next contended that findings recorded by court below have not been specifically challenged in this application. He therefore, contends that once findings have not been challenged, conclusion cannot be challenged. As findings recorded by court below on each of the issues so framed remain intact, present application is liable to be dismissed. Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Since it is a proved fact that opposite party 2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist and opposite parties 2 and 3 are minor daughters of revisionist, therefore, he is legally and morally bound to maintain them. No material has been brought on record before court below to establish that revisionist has been maintaining his wife and minor daughters. It is thus urged that no good ground exists warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State the Court finds that it is a proved fact that revisionist is husband of opposite party 2 and father of opposite parties 3 and 4. Opposite party 2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist. Opposite parties 3 and 4 have born out of wedlock of revisionist with opposite party 2. As such revisionist is legally and morally bound to maintain opposite parties. It has further been proved on record that opposite party 2 has no sufficient means to maintain her and she has been residing separately on account of failure of revisionist to maintain opposite parties. Opposite party 2 has been residing separately along with her minor daughters on sufficient and reasonable grounds. There is nothing on record to show that revisionist has been maintaining opposite parties even though they have been living separately.

In view of above, this Court does not find any good or sufficient ground to entertain this application. The application fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed.

Cost made easy.

Order Date :- 14.7.2021

Ashish Pd.