Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sharda Kumari Alias Preeti vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 December, 2022
Bench: Om Prakash Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved Judgement
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 937 of 2022
Revisionist :- Smt. Sharda Kumari Alias Preeti
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Atmaram Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Pandey,Pankaj Dubey
Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Atmaram Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Manoj Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the material on record.
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.01.2022 passed by the Court of Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalay, Bilsi, District Budaun in Criminal Case No.46 of 2019 (Smt. Sharda Kumari alias Preeti Vs. Hareesh Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Bilsi, District Budaun whereby the learned Gram Nyayalay has allowed the very less and meagre maintenance amount i.e. Rs. 2000/- per month from the date of application i.e., 07.06.2017 to the date of order dated 24.01.2022 and Rs. 4000/- per month to the revisionist from the date of order.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist is that Court below has not assessed the evidence on record and maintenance amount is very less and meagre. It is also submitted that impugned order is arbitrary, unjust and against the provision of law. The revisionist is helpless and poor lady and has no source of income and she is suffering from financial crisis and living at her parental house, totally depend on her father, who is a patient of paralysis and brain stroke. The opposite party no. 2 is having 30 bighas agricultural land and farm house in the Moradabad City and also Director of two companies, first Digital Kranti India Private Limited and second Coinomics Times Private Limited and his total income is more than one lakh per month and opposite party no.2 has no liabilities. The revisionist suffered grave mental and physical harassment by the in-laws in fact she was aborted without her will and badly beaten her and also taken stridhan of the revisionist.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 that marriage of the revisionist was solemnized without dowry and entire expenses of the marriage were borne by the family of the opposite party no.2 and no dowry was demanded or no harassment has been made. On 10.03.2017, the opposite party no. 2 was present in Bangalore and the opposite party no. 2 has returned to Delhi on 11.03.2017. In the year 2016 in pursuance of the accident the opposite party no.2 is completely on bed rest from January, 2016 to June 2016 because the opposite party no. 2 is already suffering from treatment of his leg and no such incident taken place at any point of time. Revisionist is already having MBA Degree in year 2021 from Hyderabad and she is doing job, earned much more money from her job. The revisionist is well educated. Opposite party no. 2 has no agricultural land and he is not a Director of any company and opposite party no.2 is suffering from physical disability. The opposite party no.2 has no income, he has resigned from the company and filed disability certificate 40% permanent disability.
From the perusal of X-ray report, there is Tibia fracture right external fixation applied on 02.02.2016. Metallic implant is implanted in right knee. The opposite party no. 2 is totally depend upon his parents because his right leg is not functional. Revisionist is not entitled for any interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as she herself deserted her matrimonial home and inspite of repeated request, she did not return to her matrimonial house. The opposite party no. 2 is 40% disabled.
Perused the impugned order. It is admitted fact that revisionist and opposite party no. 2 are married each other on 29.04.2013. Revisionist has MBA degree. She is living at her parental home and filed application for maintenance in June 2017. Opposite party no. 2 received an accident and he was admitted in the Hospital and was discharged on 30.06.2016 and he is fit to join w.e.f. 01.07.2016. Later on he was also admitted in the Hospital w.e.f. 22.04.2017 to 02.05.2017.
From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that disability certificate was issued on 27.11.2021. In his affidavit, the opposite party no. 2 has stated that he worked for his livelihood and his family. Opposite party no. 2 is capable of earning for livelihood and maintenance of his wife. The revisionist is unable to maintain herself and the opposite party no. 2 had refused to maintain his wife. The father of the opposite party no. 2 is 70 years old, suffering from Asthama, Blood Pressure and Diabetes and not in a position to do any work. He was posted in Cooperative Society and after retirement, he was not getting any pension. The opposite party no. 2 has also admitted that he has ancestral land in the name of his father. Trial Court has held that father of the opposite party no.2 is sick and the opposite party no. 2 has liability of his father but opposite party no. 2 is also duty bond to maintain his wife.
The revisionist has a degree of MBA, she is not doing any job. So far as the opposite party no. 2 is concerned, he is working as a Director in the Company. He has resigned from the Company detailed as above. It is also submitted that opposite party no. 2 has 30 bigha land but income of the opposite party no. 2 has been alleged as Rs.1,00,000/- lac per month.
On the basis of the above discussion and in the facts and circumstances of the case for about five years, the opposite party no. 2 has not given any single penny to his wife for maintenance, it is bound duty of opposite party no. 2 to maintain her wife.
Before the Court on 05.08.2022, when the Court asked the opposite party no. 2 to live with revisionsit, the reivsionist Sarada was agreed to live with opposite party no. 2 but the opposite party no. 2 had refused to live with her on the ground that his prestige has been damaged.
Keeping in mind the status of parties inflation and surrounding circumstances, this Court is of the view that trial Court has awarded maintenance in lower side, which is not proper and justified.
So far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, this Court is of the view that Rs.4000/- per month as maintenance is awarded to the revisionist in place of Rs.2000/- per month from the date of application i.e., 7.6.2016 to 24.01.2022. The revisionist is awarded Rs.6000/- per month as maintenance allowance from her husband opposite party no. 2 from the date of order, i.e., 24.01.2022 onward.
With the above modification, this criminal revision is disposed of .
Order Date : 09.12.2022.
Monika
(Hon. Om Prakash Tripathi, J.)
