Allahabad High Court
Shiv Bahadur vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 9 December, 2022
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1275 of 2022
Revisionist :- Shiv Bahadur
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
1. This criminal revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.10.2022 passed by the III Additional Principle Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No. 639 of 2018 : Smt. Rajpati Vs. Shiv Bahadur, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent no. 2-Smt. Rajpati (wife) and directed the revisionist-Shiv Bahadur (husband) to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.3000/- per month to the respondent no.2 from the date of application.
2. It appears that before the Court below, the wife/respondent no.2 gave an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating that she was married with revisionist according to Hindu rites and rituals in the year 1979. Thereafter, her Gauna ceremony was performed in the year 1988 and after that she went along with revisionist to her marital house. A daughter, namely, Km. Lalita was born from their wedlock in the year 1990. After sometime, her husband and his family members demanded Rs. 20000/- in dowry and on account of non-fulfillment of dowry, she along with her daughter was expelled from matrimonial house after being beaten and since then, she and her daughter are living with her parents. The husband is big agriculturist and is also doing business in Chandigarh and is earning Rs. 50,000/- in a month and therefore, she claim Rs. 5000/- as maintenance.
3. The revisionist/husband filed a written statement and admitted the marriage and birth of daughter. Respondent no.2 is a free-minded lady and she never cared about the social image and feelings of the revisionist and his family members, on account of which, some differences took place between him and respondent no.2 and after that respondent no.2 left the company of the revisionist and started residing at her parental house. Later on 25.06.2010, a mutual settlement took place between the revisionist and respondent no.2, in pursuance of which, the revisionist gave one time maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/- to the respondent no.2 and her daughter. After sometime of receiving the aforesaid amount, respondent no.2 returned to her marital house and started residing there in a separate room. After that, revisionist fulfilled all the basic needs of the respondent no.2 and also performed the marriage of his daughter.
4. After considering the evidence of the parties, the court below passed the judgment and order dated 28.10.2022, directing the revisionist to pay Rs.3000/- from the the date application to the respondent no.2 as maintenance.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 28.10.2022, this revision has been filed by the revisionist.
6. Learned Counsel for the revisionist has stated that once the amount of one-time settlement has been given by the revisionist to his legally wedded wife through mutual consent and further the respondent no.2 is residing in her marital house, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent no.2 to claim maintenance from the revisionist but the Court below without considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, passed the impugned order, directing the revisionist to pay Rs.3000/- to the respondent no.2 from the date of the application.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the revisionist and going through the impugned judgment and order dated 28.10.2022, it transpires that the Court below, after appreciating the pleadings exchanged between the parties, have recorded specific finding that respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist, who has neglected his wife/respondent no.2 and as such, on placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others : 2007 (57) ACC 924 and Rajnish Vs. Neha : 2020 ACC 903, directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance from the date of the application to the respondent no.2.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the view and approach of the Court below is completely justified and legal and there is no material irregularity or illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the revision has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.
9. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed. .
10. The office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Court below for information and necessary compliance.
(Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 9.12.2022
Ajit/-
