Laxmi Shankar Anand vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 23776 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:174083
 
Court No. - 50
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1097 of 2023
 

 
Revisionist :- Laxmi Shankar Anand
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiva Kant Srivastava,Pradeep Chauhan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravindra Kumar Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the private respondent and learned A.G.A. for the Stat and perused the record.

Instant criminal revision has been preferred against impugned judgment and order dated 19.1.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Jaunpur in Case No. 814 of 2014 (C.N.R. No. UPJP020001522014) (Reena Devi Kaushal Vs. Laxmi Shankar Anand), whereby revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant/respondent no. 2, who is his wife, from the date of filing of application and the amount of maintenance is payable on monthly basis on 10th of each month.

Factual matrix of the case are that respondent no. 2 Reena Devi Kaushal instituted a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance before court below bearing Case No. 814 of 2014 wherein she stated that her marriage was solemnized on 15.11.2012, according to Hindu rites and rituals with revisionist. Her father gave sufficient gifts in the form of cash and goods to revisionist, however, after six months of marriage, her husband and in-laws started demanding additional dowry to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- and a four wheeler. The revisionist and his family members subjected the respondent no. 2 to matrimonial cruelty and harassment due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. They used to torture mentally and physical and gave beating to her now and then. They used to abuse her also. Respondent no. 2 continued to live in her matrimonial home even after suffering continuous harassment. On 13.8.2013, her husband and in-laws got her sit in their four wheeler and left her by the side of road near her maternal grand father's place. She went to her parental place anyhow and stated her plight to her father and brother. He father visited the place of her husband along with some respectable persons and tried to convince the revisionist and his family members. Revisionist and his family members anyhow conceded to the prayer of her father and agreed to keep her with him but when she came back to her matrimonial home, harassment and torture revived after some time. On 29.7.2014 at 7:00 pm, she was badly beaten by her husband and her in-laws and they even tried to burn her alive but the respondent no. 2 saved herself anyhow and informed her brother regarding the incident. Even after much effort for reconciliation, the opposite party and his family members had not been prepared to mend their ways and turned her out from their place. Respondent no. 2 was forced to reside at her parental place. She is not having any source of income whereas revisionist is a resourceful person. He is having agricultural land and also owns a tent house.

Learned court below summoned the revisionist who appeared before the court and denied the allegations made in maintenance application and stated that he is not having any substantial income to pay maintenance to his wife. The allegation that respondent no. 2 was subjected to cruelty due to non-fulfillment of dowry is false. Marriage was solemnized without any dowry. Respondent no. 2 herself left her matrimonial home without any sufficient cause. She even tried to hang herself on 12.8.2013 from a ceiling fan but the revisionist got awake and saved her. He informed her family members who took her along with them on next day. Respondent no. 2 is a qualified woman. She has done M.A., B.Ed and also passed CTET examination and at present she is teaching in Ma Gayatri Inter College Kamalpur, Azamgarh, and earns around Rs. 15,000/- per month. She is able to maintain herself. Learned trial court framed two issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties and recorded evidence adduced by the parties. Learned trial court gave finding on the basis of pleadings and evidence of the parties to the effect that revisionist (husband of respondent no. 2) had filed a divorce petition in competent court which has been dismissed by the court. This is stated in order sheet dated 6.4.2018 that revisionist refused to live with the respondent no. 2. Pleadings of the respondent no. 2 in written statement filed in divorce proceedings and present maintenance proceedings are similar. Respondent no. 2 is living separately from her husband with sufficient cause. The revisionist has been negligent in maintaining the respondent no. 2. She is having sufficient reasons to live separately from her husband. Revisionist could not file any proof in support of his version that respondent no. 2 was teaching in some school and earning a fix sum of money. Revisionist has filed income certificate issued from Tehsildar which reveals that he is getting Rs. 4,000/- as agricultural income whereas respondent no. 2 has stated that he is a labourer but she has not filed any separate proof regarding his income derived from physical labour. Respondent no. 2 stated that revisionist runs a tent house, thus it appears that apart from agricultural income i.e. Rs. 4,000/-, revisionist is having some other source of income also. Revisionist fails to adduce any evidence on record which could make it obvious that respondent no. 2 was able to maintain herself. Revisionist is under moral and legal obligation to maintain his wife and in the opinion of the court, a sum of Rs. 5,000/- will be reasonable to be awarded to the respondent no. 2 for her maintenance and same will be payable by revisionist.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that apart from the income certificate issued by Tehsildar in which his monthly income is shown as Rs. 4,000/- as agricultural income, no other income of the revisionist is proved on record. This income certificate has been filed by the revisionist himself. The amount awarded in impugned order is exorbitant and beyond financial capacity of the revisionist. He is not able to pay the amount awarded in impugned order to the respondent no. 2. Learned court below has failed to consider the academic qualification and her earning as a teacher from Ma Gayatri Inter College, Azamgarh. Revisionist never ill treated the respondent no. 2. No demand of dowry was made ever by the revisionist. All the allegations in this regard are false and frivolous. Finding given by learned trial court is based on conjecture and surmises.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that amount awarded in impugned judgment is very reasonable and the same requires no interference in present revision. Revisionist has concealed his other income from running a tent house. Finding of fact recorded by learned trial court needs no interference in present revision as same is based on evidence and pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced during hearing in the form of oral evidence as well as documents on record.

Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, material and evidence on record and admissions of parties, this Court is of the opinion that there is no factual or legal error in findings recorded by learned court below to the extent that respondent no. 2 is living separately from her husband due to sufficient cause and her income from serving as a teacher in private school has not been proved on record, thus she is unable to maintain herself, however, the amount awarded in impugned order is on higher side and apart from bald averment of the respondent no. 2 that in addition to some income derived from agricultural activities, he earns sufficiently from running a tent house, the amount awarded in impugned judgment is liable to be reduced to some extent. This fact is also liable to be taken into consideration that amount of arrears is payable from the date of filing of application in impugned order, as directed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, thus amount of arrears is huge, therefore, it is directed that amount of maintenance awarded in impugned judgment and order dated 19.1.2023 is reduced from Rs. 5,000/- per month to Rs. 3,000/- per month with same terms and conditions, as stipulated in impugned judgment and order. Impugned order stands modified to this extent.

Revision stands disposed of with above modification.

The arrears of maintenance will be liable to be paid from the date of filing of application to date of judgment, in six equal installments and first installments will be payable from 10th of September, 2023 and remaining installments will be payable in succeeding months. The amount of maintenance from the date of judgment to the month of August, 2023 will be payable lumpsum in the seven installment in March, 2024.

In case of infraction in compliance of this order, court below will will be at liberty to take coercive action against him.

Order Date :- 29.8.2023

A.P. Pandey