Vikrant vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 15 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?
 
Court No. - 88
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2041 of 2021
 

 
Revisionist :- Vikrant
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mukesh Kumar Upadhyay,Yogesh Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brij Lal Shukla
 

 
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

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

2. The present revision has been preferred against Judgement and order dated 05.08.2021, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.03, Ghaziabad in Case No.137 of 2019 (Old No.54 of 2012) (Smt. Seema Vs. Vikrant) and Case No.499 of 2014 (Km. Bhavya vs. Vikrant), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month to the respondent no.2 and Rs.4.000-/- per month for the respondent no.3, who is minor child of the parties, from the date of application.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that marriage of revisionist with respondent No. 2 has taken place on 05.05.2011 and out of that marriage, they have one girl child. Learned counsel submitted that allegations that the respondent No. 2 was harassed or assaulted by revisionist are thoroughly false. The respondent No. 2 has filed the application under Section 125 CrPC making false and baseless allegations. Learned counsel submitted that the income certificate of revisionist has been issued by the office of Tehsildar, Meerut, wherein, income of revisionist has been shown only Rs.3500/- PM, whereas, the court below has granted maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of respondent No. 2 and Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of respondent No. 3, who is minor child of the parties. It is submitted that revisionist has no source of income and he is doing farming in the land of his father and that he has already left his job. Referring to the facts of the matter, it is submitted that the maintenance granted by the court below is highly excessive and arbitrary and that the court below has not considered the facts of the matter in correct perspective and also did not consider the income certificate issued by the competent authority. It was argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned AGA and learned counsel for the private respondent have submitted that impugned order has been passed after considering all relevant facts and evidence and that there is no illegality, perversity or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order.

5. Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. As per section 125 of Cr. P. C. if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor children whether married or not, and his father or mother unable to maintain themselves, the Magistrate First Class upon proof of such refusal or neglect direct such person to make monthly allowances and to pay the same to such persons from time to time. It is well established that object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who is not able to maintain herself. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. Maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty. It is awarded to her so that she can survive. The fact that time is spent between the date of the application and a final adjudication and an award in favour of the wife, does not mean that she had enough funds to maintain herself. The provisions of maintenance of wives and children intend to serve a social purpose [see Jagir Kaur & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh [AIR 1963 SC 1521]. In Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors [1969 (3) SCC 802, the Supreme Court, discussing Section 488 of the old Cr.P.C, held that Section 488 provides a summary remedy and is applicable to all persons belonging to any religion and has no relationship with the personal law of the parties. In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal and Ors. [AIR 1978 SC 1807], the Court held that Section 125 is a reincarnation of Section 488 of the Cr.P.C. of 1898 except for the fact that parents have also been brought into the category of persons entitled for maintenance. It was observed that this provision is a measure of social justice specially enacted to protect, and inhibit neglect of women, children, old and infirm and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. Again in Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) [(1991) 2 SCC 375, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 125 of the Code of 1973 is meant to achieve a social purpose and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It was held the provision provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. From above stated case laws the legal position it is quite clear that Section 125 Cr. P.C is a measure of social legislation and is to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and children.

6. Keeping the above mentioned position of law in mind, in the instant case it may be seen that it is not disputed that respondent No. 2 Seema is legally wedded wife of revisionist and their marriage has taken place on 5.5.2011. In her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she has inter-alia alleged that she was harassed by the revisionist and his family members on account of dowry and they used to demand a car and Rs. 5,00,000/- cash in additional dowry and she was even assaulted by them. She has also alleged that she has absolutely no source of income, whereas revisionist is working in Surya Diagnostic Lab and getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month from there. The revisionist has denied the allegations of respondent No.2 and stated that he is having income of only Rs.3500/- per month only and he has already left his job and that the respondent No. 2 is an educated lady and she is earning Rs.6,000/- per month by taking tuitions. However, no credible evidence has been led by the revisionist to show the alleged income of Rs.6,000/- per month to the respondent No. 2. On the basis of evidence of the parties, the trial court has found that revisionist has neglected the maintenance of his wife/respondent No. 2 and his minor daughter/respondent No. 3 and that respondent No. 2 has sufficient cause to live separately from revisionist. The revisionist is stated B.Sc passed. The revisionist has placed reliance on the income certificate, wherein, his income was shown as Rs.3,500/- per month. However, facts of the case show that the revisionist is a young man and there is nothing to show that he has any physical disability. It is common knowledge that even an unskilled physically abled young person can easily earn about Rs.4,00- 500/- per day by labour work. Though, revisionist has alleged that he has left his job at Surya Diagnostic Lab but he accepted that he is doing animal husbandry and farming. Learned court below has considered the entire evidence of the parties in correct prospective and concluded that the revisionist is able to pay maintenance for his wife and minor daughter. As stated earlier, it is not disputed that respondent No. 2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist and respondent No. 3 is his minor daughter. The evidence discloses that the respondent No. 2 has sufficient and just reasons to live separately from her husband. The revisionist could not show any such credible evidence that the respondent No. 2 has any source of income for her maintenance. In view of averments and evidence of the parties, the grant of maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month for respondent No. 2 and Rs.4,000/- for respondent No. 3 cannot be said arbitrary or excessive.

7. At this juncture it may be stated that object of section 397 Cr.P.C. is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. The revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt restrictions is that it should not be against an interim or interlocutory order. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deepak [Criminal Appeal No. 485 of 2019] decided on 13.03.2019. In view of all these facts, no interference is called in the impugned judgment and order.

8. So far this contention is concerned that the said maintenance has been granted from the date of application and due to that reason there are huge arrears of maintenance on the revisionist, it is directed that in case revisionist moves an appropriate application before the court below for paying the arrears of maintenance in instalments, the court below shall consider and decide the same considering the capacity of revisionist and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it can not be said that impugned order is suffering from any patent defect, illegality or error of jurisdiction so as to require any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under revisional jurisdiction.

10. With aforesaid observations, the instant criminal revision is disposed of accordingly.

Order Date :- 2.01.2023

Neeraj