Allahabad High Court
Anil Lakhmani vs State Of U.P. And Others on 6 May, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 353 of 2022
Revisionist :- Anil Lakhmani
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Gaurav Kumar Hasani,Ajeet Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Abhishek Shukla
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.
Vakalatnama filed by Ms. Neeta Singh Chandel, on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Mishra, counsel for the revisionist, Mrs. Neeta Singh Chandel, counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant revision has been preferred with a prayer to summon the lower court record, allow the revision and quash/set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16.03.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad in Case No. 16 of 2006 (Smt. Tanya Lakhmani & Others Vs. Anil Lakhmani), under Sections 125 Cr.P.C.
The opposite party No. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with averment that she was married to the revisionist on 12.12.2002 as per Hindu (Sindhi) rites. After marriage, she went to her in-laws house (Sasural) and performed all marital obligations. Out of the wedlock, one son namely, Kartik Lakhmani and a daughter, namely, Dhairya Lakhmani, were born. She further stated in the application that the revisionist has got a business of readymade clothes. As soon as she went to her in-laws' house the revisionist and her in-laws started demanding dowry and many times, she was scolded and beaten by them. Through newspaper she came to know about the illicit relation of her husband with a woman, on 4.11.2015 that her husband was caught in compromising position with a women, namely, Harsha Rupani and when she told about this illegal act of the revisionist to her father, the revisionist and his family members beaten her and said why she told this news to her parents. She made further averments in the application that she was deserted by her husband (revisionist) and his family members and the matter was tried to be settled by the local people of the Mohalla but it was of no avail and she remained deserted. She stated in her application that she was unable to maintain herself and her children, therefore, she filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., in which notices were issued to the revisionist, who appeared and filed objection to the said application.
The revisionist, in his objection, stated that the marriage took place between him and the opposite party No. 2 and admitted that out of the wedlock two children were born. He further stated in the objection that he used to take care of his wife and children but made allegation that his health was deteriorating and opposite party No. 2 did not take care of him. He has further stated in the objection that he has given a plot of 2040 sq.ft. to opposite party No. 2 and it has been stated that she wants to sell the said plot. He further stated in his objection that the opposite party No. 2 has filed the application only to harass the revisionist and the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed.
The court below framed four issues:
(1) Whether the opposite party No. 2 (wife) is residing separately with reasonable cause.
(2) Whether the opposite party No. 2 is able to maintain herself and the children.
(3) Whether the revisionist is not maintaining in spite of the fact that he has got sufficient source of income.
(4) Whether the opposite party No. 2 is entitled for any maintenance.
Before the court below P.W. -1 (the opposite party No. 2), P.W. -2 (Yogesh Kumar, P.W. -3 (Deepak Chandani) were examined from the side of opposite party No. 2 whereas the revisionist was examined as D.W. -1 and Jitendra Lakhmani was examined as D.W. -2.
The court below has given detailed finding and discussed the financial condition of the revisionist and passed order awarding Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance in favour of opposite party No. 2 and Rs.2,500/- per month to each children. Being aggrieved by the said order, the instant revision has been preferred by the revisionist.
There is no dispute regarding the marriage between the revisionist and the opposite party No. 2 which was solemnized on 12.12.2002 as per the Hindu (Sindhi) rites. It is admitted on record that the revisionist and the opposite party No. 2 lived as husband and wife till 2015 and two children were born out of the wedlock. The record further indicates that the revisionist was remanded in a case on 04.11.2015, under Sections 107, 116, 151 Cr.P.C. It has been also recorded by the court below that the revisionist had illicit relation with a lady that is why he deserted the opposite party No. 2 and her children. The opposite party No. 2 had came to her parents house in 2015 when she came to know that the husband had illicit relation with one woman and after that he had not paid any heed towards his wife and children. He did not make any attempt to bring the wife and the children back to his home.
The fact is also important that the revisionist has said that he was suffering from mental disorder and his health was deteriorating but he could not prove his statement by filing any document or medical paper in support of this fact. The record reveals that the wife was forced to leave the house and she was residing with her parents. Now the question arises that if the wife is deserted then whether she is entitled for maintenance or not. In the present case, the finding recorded by the court below is not perverse to the effect wherein it is observed that it is the husband who deserted her and once he did so, he has to maintain the wife and the children. The income of the revisionist has been also considered with due care. The court below has considered the income tax return filed by the revisionist in 2008-09 which indicated the income of the revisionist at that time as Rs.1,13,000/- and it has also come on record that he was doing a business of readymade clothes and earning Rs.18,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month from the said business. Thus, no adverse inference can be drawn that he was not having good income.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another [(2021) 2 SCC 324] and Sunita Kachawaha and Others Vs. Anil Kachwaha [(2014) 16 SCC 715] has propounded law regarding the maintenance and the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a husband has to maintain his wife. In the case of Sunita Kachawaha, the Supreme Court has observed that if wife lives separately, she is entitled for maintenance. Here in the present case, the opposite party No. 2 was forced to leave the house of the husband who is having an illicit relation with another woman. Once she (wife) is living separately, the husband is liable to pay maintenance.
In view of the aforesaid discussions, the judgment passed by the court below is justified which needs no interference by this Court.
Consequently, the revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 6.5.2022
Arun K. Singh
(Brij Raj Singh, J.)
