Daljit Kaur vs Parmindar Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2478 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 93
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 915 of 2016
 

 
Revisionist :- Daljit Kaur
 
Opposite Party :- Parmindar Singh
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Priydershi Himanshu Vashi,P.H.Vashishtha
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ankur Mehrotra,Mr Harpreet Singh Bedi
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

This revision is directed against the order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Criminal Misc. Case No. 271 of 2012, Daljit Kaur and another Vs. Parminder Singh, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareilly, whereby the learned court below while rejecting the claim of maintenance of revisionist, has granted Rs. 2,000/- per month to the minor son from the date of order.

Heard Shri P. H. Vashishtha, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Ankur Mehrotra, the learned counsel for the opposite party and perused the record.

Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties.

Shri P. H. Vashishtha submits that the impugned order passed by the court below suffers from surmises and conjectures. The impugned order has been passed without considering the evidence on record. Even though the court below has not considered the fact that the revisionist has already filed an application for recall of the order passed under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act. It is also not disputed that the revisionist has already filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which has also been dismissed.

Per contra, Shri Ankur Mehrotra submits that the court below in its impugned judgment and order has given a finding that in her statement recorded by the revisionist, she herself stated that if she will be taken back by the opposite party in her matrimonial house with honour, still she will refuse to go with him and she wants divorce from her husband.

Shri Ankur Mehrotra further submits that in view of sub section 4 and 5 of Section 125 Cr.P.C. the revisionist is not entitled to any maintenance from her husband as she has refused to live with her husband as has been stated by her in her statement before the court below.

After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, this Court comes to conclusion that since the revisionist has herself denied to go with her husband in her statement recorded before the court below, therefore, in view of sub section 4 and 5 of Section 125 Cr.P.C., she is not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband. The court below has rightly rejected the claim of revisionist for grant of maintenance from her husband.

The impugned judgment and order does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and needs no interference.

The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Dismissed accordingly.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

The file is consigned to record.

Order Date :- 11.5.2022

Mustaqeem.