Allahabad High Court
Mrs. Prabhawati vs Judge Family Court And Another on 24 November, 2022
Bench: Syed Aftab Rizvi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4825 of 2005
Revisionist :- Mrs. Prabhawati
Opposite Party :- Judge Family Court And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- R.D. Patel,P.D. Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,D.R.S. Chauhan,D.R.S. Pal
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.
Case taken up in the revised call. None is present either for the revisionist or for the O.P. No. 2. Learned A.G.A. is present.
This Criminal Revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 21.10.2005 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in Case No. 344 of 1999 Smt. Prabhawati Vs. Lallu Pal. By the impugned order the learned court below has rejected the Application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist.
The application for maintenance was filed by the applicant-revisionist alleging therein that here marriage was solemnized with opposite party in May, 1994. The opposite party and his father and mother started to demand additional dowry after marriage. On her refusal they tortured and abused her and they also ousted her from their house. The opposite party was also going to perform second marriage then an application was moved by the applicant-revisionist to the S.P. on which he could not perform the second marriage. The opposite party deserted her. The applicant is not able to maintain her. The opposite party has agricultural land and he also engaged in other profession and his annual income is about Rs. two lacs. The opposite party filed written statements. He admitted the fact of marriage, denying all other allegations, he pleaded that applicant herself is not willing to live with opposite party. She has not consummated the marriage. She has affair with her brother-in-law and wanted to live with him. She on her own will is living separately. The opposite party has not deserted her. The learned court below after taking evidence of the parties by the impugned judgment has given finding that applicant has not come with clean hands and she has not disclosed correct facts to this Court. She herself is not living with the opposite party without any just and sufficient reason. On the aforesaid ground the learned trial court has rejected the application.
The main grounds of the revision are that learned court below has misread and misconstrued the statement of the revisionist made in support of application and wrongly interpreted the contents of the statement by refusing the maintenance. The O.P. No. 2 has performed second marriage. Voter list has been filed to prove it. It is not safe for the revisionist to live with O.P. No. 2 as there is apprehension and danger to her life. There is sufficient ground for refusal to live with the O.P. No. 2. The impugned judgment and order suffers from manifest error of law. The finding is based on conjuncture and surmises.
The learned court below has narrated the entire pleadings and analyzed the evidence produced by both the parties and after analyses has given finding that applicant herself without any just and sufficient reason has deserted the opposite party. The aforesaid finding appears to just and proper. There is no perversity or infirmity in the aforesaid finding. There is no sufficient ground to interfere in the finding recorded by the court below.
The revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.11.2022
Masarrat
