Allahabad High Court
Heeravati Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 June, 2022
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2153 of 2022
Revisionist :- Heeravati Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shailendra Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Shailendra Kumar Yadav learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Munne Lal, learned AGA, who appears for the State.
This is a revision purported to be under Section 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. instituted by the wife wherein challenge has been made to the order dated 30.04.2022 passed by learned IIIrd Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur in Case No. 1295 of 2013 (Heeravati Devi vs. Umesh Rajbhar) whereby the application so preferred Under Section 125 Cr. P.C. by the revisionist claiming maintenance to the tune of Rs.10,000/- has been rejected.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that marriage had been solemnized as per Hindu rituals and rites on 5.6.2009 between the opposite party no.2 and the revisionist. He has further argued that that the husband of the revisionist, who happens to be the opposite party no.2 had plans to go to Punjab for undergoing certain works in order to sustain the livelihood of the family and he thus directed to revisionist to stay in her maternal house and when he will return back from Punjab then they will live jointly.
Records for the reveal that the revisionist came to know that the opposite party no.2 got marriage in the month of April pursuant whereto discordant relationship became a relevant factor occasioning the filing of the application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
According to learned counsel for the revisionist huge amounts by way of gift was also offered to the in-laws but harassment was being sought to be meted to her with relation to the fact that in case more money/gifts are not being offered then that will tantamount to breakage of the marriage.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has further argued that the order so passed by the court below which is under challenge is perverse contrary to material on record as the revisionist is entitled to be granted the maintenance as it is on account of the conduct of the husband opposite party no.2 which became the instrumental in not allowing her to stay in laws house.
Sri Munne Lal lenared AGA on the other hand has opposed the present revision while inviting attention of the court towards the deposition of towards cross-examination of the PW1 being revisionist herein according to which it has come on record that despite being repeatedly ask to produce any document pertaining to the fact as to whether the opposite party no.2 had solemnized any second marriage despite the first marriage in existence the revisionist did not provide any documents or details in this regard. He has also drawn the attention of the Court towards internal page 4 of the judgment running page 11 which happens to be the statement of the brother of the revisionist wherein it has come on record the demand that a demand of Rs.6,00,000/- were sought to be made from the husband opposite party no.2 that the question of settlement and compromise will only occasion in case an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- is being extended to the revisionist.
This Court further finds that there is nothing on record so as to indicate any act or omission on the part of the husband opposite party no.2 but rather to the contrary it is revisionist who according to her freewill is staying all alone and the husband of the revisionist is wanting her to come in the house.
Apart from the same, a specific finding has been recorded by the court below in internal page 6 of the judgment at page 13 of the running page wherein in the last three lines attached to the bottom, it has been recorded that the revisionist is staying in her maternal house according to her freewill for past 12 years and she would only go and reside with her husband in case she is offered Rs.6,00,000/-.
In view of foregoing discussions, this Court finds that the jurisdiction with the court is supposed to exercise at the present juncture is a revisional jurisdiction which is not akin to the appellate jurisdiction as I am of the opinion that the order so sought to be passed by the court below rejecting the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is within four corners of law.
On being repeatedly asked from the learned counsel for the revisionist as to whether there is any document to show that second marriage has been solemnized or the fact negating the finding recorded in the order in question whether there is any infirmity in the order while recording a finding that the revisionist is living with her parents (maternal) according to her freewill for the past 12 years and also she would only go to reside with her husband in case Rs.6,00,000/- is offered to her the answer of the Learned Counsel is negative.
Considering the entire facts in totality, this Court does not find the present case to be fit case for interfere in revisional jurisdiction and thus it is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.6.2022
piyush
