Allahabad High Court
Smt. Sunita Devi And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 7 May, 2022
Bench: Brij Raj Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 16
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1123 of 2017
Revisionist :- Smt. Sunita Devi And Anr.
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ambrish Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
Heard Sri Ambrish Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Divakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.
Notice was issued to opposite party no.2 and the same has been served. Case has been revised but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 even in the revised list.
The present criminal revision has been preferred with the prayer to allow this revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 09.08.2017 passed by learned Additional Judge, Family Court/ F.T.C., No.3, Rae Bareli in Criminal Case No. 421 of 2014 (Sunita Devi and another Vs. Ram Prasad @ Badlu), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.W. Bachhrawan, District Rae Bareli whereby meagre maintenance amount to the tune of Rs.300/- per month to the revisionist no.1 and Rs.300/- per month to the revisionist no.2 has been awarded from the date of filing application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in place of Rs.7000/- per month.
Brief facts of the case are that the revisionist no.1 was married to opposite party no.2 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and in the marriage father of the revisionist has given dowry as per his capacity. After the marriage opposite party no.2 and his family members started to demand additional dowry and the revisionist was mentally and physically harassed. The opposite party no.2 demanded Rs.50,000/- and one motorcycle. Out of the wedlock Km. Shivani, revisionist no.2 was born. By the passage of time, the situation became very worst for both the revisionist and in December, 2007 both the revisionist were ousted from the house and she went to her parents home.
The revisionist no.1 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which notice was issued to opposite party no.2 and he appeared and filed his objection. In the objection he has stated that he had gone to the house of her parents of the revisionist no.1 and requested her to come back to his house but she refused. He requested her to send his daughter with him but revisionist no.1 refused to send her. He has further stated that he is a labour and has no income, therefore, he is unable to pay the maintenance.
The court below examined the revisionist no.1 as A.P.W.-1, Ramkhelawan as A.P.W.-2. Similarly the opposite party no.2 was examined as O.P.W.-1, Rahmatali as O.P.W.-2 and Parashuram Patel as O.P.W.-3 were also examined. After recording the statements as well as other records the court below passed the order impugned on 09.08.2017 and it is admitted that both the parties are the husband and wife and they have married as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. The Court below awarded only Rs.300/- to revisionist no.1 and Rs.300/- to revisionist n.2. Thus being aggrieved the revisionists have filed this revision with the prayer to allow this revision and enhance the maintenance amount.
It is also to be seen as to whether the court below passed the order in respect to the income of the opposite party no.2. The order passed by the court below is not speaking on the point in question as to what was the income of opposite party no.2 and what were the documents for determination of the income. The maintenance awarded by the Court below is Rs.300/- which is too meager for maintenance of wife and even if the minimum wages is considered at the present time it is not sufficient.
Since the court below has not considered the documents and other relevant facts regarding the income of opposite party no.2, I am of the opinion that the present case is liable to be remanded to the court below to consider the point in issue regarding the income of the opposite party no.2 so that the maintenance can be awarded according to the income.
It is directed that the court below will take a fresh decision in the matter for enhancement of the maintenance amount in light of the observation made above by considering the income of opposite party no.2. The said exercise will be done within a period of four months from today.
The criminal revision is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 7.5.2022/Arun K. Singh/Abhishek
