Allahabad High Court
Kamlesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 21 April, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5227 of 2022
Revisionist :- Kamlesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vijay Singh Rathore
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.
1. Heard Sri Sangam Singh holding brief of Sri Vijay Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
02. By means of this criminal revision the revisionist has challenged the order and judgment dated 16.09.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Jalaun at Ora in Criminal Misc. Case No.560 of 2019 (Smt. Rama Devi and another vs. Kamlesh Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby learned trial court allowed the application directing the revisionist to pay Rs.3000/- per month to his wife Rama Devi, respondent no.2 and Rs.2000/- per month to his daughter respondent no.3, from the date of the application as maintenance amount.
03. It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that the wife has not been able to show sufficient ground for living separately and that no evidence has been led to demonstrate income of the revisionist and that his income has not been determined by the court below, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of the law.
04. The contentions of the revisionist are opposed by the other side on the premise that wife was subjected to maltreatment and violence by other members of the family of the husband. She is perfectly justified in living separate from rest of the family. Secondly as far as the income is concerned, this is admitted position that the revisionist husband is a healthy man, he therefore, cannot escape from his liability to maintain his wife and daughter.
05. I went through the judgement of the trial court as well as material on record.
06. Learned trial court has referred to the evidence given by the revisionist in which he stated that he has been living separately from rest of the family members. On the other hand, wife has claimed that she is ready and willing to live with her husband provided she is assured of good behavior from him. It may also be noted that while dealing with controversy on this point, the trial court formally framed a point of determination in this regard that whether the wife has been living separately for sufficient reasons. Learned trial court analysed the evidence given by both the sides. The court noticed that the wife has in her statement given the reasons as to why she was compelled to leave the house and that she has made specific allegations against her-in-laws. The matter went upto filing N.C.R. It may usefully be pointed out that it is not always that wife is to be forcibly turned out from her house instead there may be circumstances which compel her to leave the place. This is what appears in this case as well. The learned trial court, after going through the evidence led by both the sides and after evaluation thereof, has come to the conclusion that she has been living separately for sufficient cause. I do not find any perversity in the inference drawn by the trial court so as to justify any inference by this court. As far as the determination of income is concerned, obviously it is the husband who should have all the knowledge about his sources of income, therefore law required that he files an affidavit disclosing all details. Admittedly, as is clear from para-35 of the judgment husband filed an affidavit in which he said that he has been earning by doing physical labour. In view of the above admission, the inference drawn by learned trial court cannot be faulted. In my view, inference drawn is based on correct evaluation of evidence before the trial court. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this revision.
07. Hence, the revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.4.2023
Asha
