Allahabad High Court
Ruchir Ahuja vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 6 May, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:80347
Reserved on: 09.04.2024
Delivered on: 06.05.2024
Court No. - 77
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4266 of 2022
Revisionist :- Ruchir Ahuja
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Pathak,Harshit Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nanhe Lal Tripathi
Connected with
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4497 of 2022
Revisionist :- Rashmi Ahuja
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Nanhe Lal Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Pathak,G.A.,Harshit Pathak
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Harshit Pathak, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Nanhe Lal Tripathi, the learned counsel representing opposite parties 2 and 3.
2. Perused the record.
3. Both the criminal revisions have been filed challenging the common order dated 13.09.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 475 of 2021 (Smt. Rashmi Ahuja and Another Vs. Dr. Ruchir Ahuja), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Bita-2, District-Gautam Buddha Nagar, whereby Court below has decided the application for interim maintenance filed by opposite parties 2 and 3 in Criminal Revision No. 4266 of 2022 (Ruchir Ahuja Vs. State of U.P. and Others).
4. Court below, by means of above order, has accepted the claim of opposite party 3, Km. Chaarvi Ahuja i.e. the minor daughter of the revisionist for grant of monthly maintenance, whereas rejected the same in respect of opposite party-2 Smt. Rashmi Ahuja, wife of revisionist Ruchir Ahuja.
5. Revisionist Ruchir Ahuja is aggrieved by the said order to the extent, maintenance has been awarded in favour of opposite party-3.
6. Revisionist Smt. Rashmi Ahuja is aggrieved by the conclusion drawn by Court below rejecting the claim of revisionist Smt. Rashmi Ahuja for grant of interim maintenance.
7. Record shows that marriage of revisionist Ruchir Ahuja was solemnized with opposite party-2 Smt. Rashmi Ahuja on 03.02.2013 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. From the aforesaid wedlock, a daughter namely Km. Charvi was born on 15.05.2015.
8. It is the case of opposite party-2 that at the time of marriage, sufficient amount of goods and dowry were given by the parents of opposite party-2 but the revisionist Ruchir Ahuja and his family members were dissatisfied with the same. As such, physical and mental cruelty was committed upon opposite party-2. Domestic violence is alleged to have been committed upon opposite party-2 repeatedly. Ultimately, opposite party-2 along with her minor daughter left her marital home and started residing with her parents. Since opposite party-2 was not having any independent source of income to maintain herself or sustain her minor daughter, therefore, faced with despair and destitution, she filed an application dated 22.10.2021 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maitnenance @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per month for herself and her minor daughter. This application came to be registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 475 of 2021 (Smt. Rashmi Ahuja and Another Vs. Dr. Ruchir Ahuja), under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
9. Notice was issued by Court below on the said application. Opposite party therein i.e. the husband appeared and filed his written statement/objections dated 25.02.2022 disputing the claim for grant of maintenance raised by opposite party-2 for herself and her minor daughter.
10. During the pendency of aforementioned maintenance case, opposite party-2 filed an application dated 24.03.2022 for interim maintenance. This application came to be registered as Paper No. 18-Kha. The application for interim maintenance filed by opposite party-2 was opposed by revisionist and he filed his objection dated 24.04.2022 disputing the claim of opposite parties 2 and 3 to claim interim maintenance. It is apposite to mention here that in compliance of the judgment of Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324, the revisionist i.e. husband filed his affidavit regarding his status and salary/income. Similarly, opposite party-2 had also filed her affidavit regarding her status and salary/income.
11. Ultimately, on the basis of material on record, Court below proceeded to consider the claim of opposite parties 2 and 3 regarding grant of interim maintenance. Court below upon appraisal and appreciation of the material on record, came to the conclusion that though affidavit regarding the status and income/salary have been filed by both the parties but both the parties have concealed the true facts from the Court. Court below even after recording this finding, proceeded to weigh the degree of concealment and ultimately, returned a finding that opposite party-2 has especially concealed her income from the Court. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce the exact observations made by Court below, which are contained in paragraph 4 and running page 5 of the certified copy of the impugned order:-
"उपरोक्त चर्चा से इस न्यायालय का मत है कि प्रार्थिनी सं01 तथा विपक्षी स्वच्छ हाथों से न्याायालय में उपस्थित नहीं हुए हैं। इस न्यायालय का मत है कि प्रार्थिनी सं01 द्वारा विषेष रूप से अपनी आय तथा कार्य को छुपाया x;k है। इस न्यायालय का यह भी मत है कि विपक्षी द्वारा वि'ks"k रूप से अपनी आय को जानबूझकर कम दर्षित किया है।"
12. Court below upon evaluation of the material on record has returned another finding that since opposite party-2 is living in the state of adultery, therefore, in view of the prohibition contained in Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., opposite party-2 cannot press her right of maintenance against revisionist in terms of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
13. Lastly, Court below considering the status of the parties and also the fact that the true facts with regard to the assets, status and income/salary have been concealed by the revisionist drew an adverse inference against revisionist and ultimately, by means of order dated 13.09.2022 rejected the claim of opposite party-2 for grant of monthly maintenance but allowed the same in respect of opposite party-3 @ Rs. 20,000/- per month.
14. Mr. Harshit Pathak, the learned counsel for revisionist-Ruchir Ahuja contends that the order impugned in present criminal revision is manifestly illegal and in excess of jurisdiction. Consequently, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. Court below while considering the claim for payment of monthly maintenance raised by opposite parties 2 and 3 has not considered the material on record particularly the income tax returns of the revisionist and in ignorance of the same has drawn an adverse inference against the revisionist. The same is manifestly illegal. In the submission of the learned counsel for revisionist, once the income tax returns of revisionist were available on record, which are public documents and acquire a legal character by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 143 of the Income Tax Act i.e. an order of assessment passed on the income tax returns submitted by an assessee, therefore, no good ground was available for the Court below to ignore the same and draw an adverse inference against the revisionist regarding his income. On the above premise, he, therefore, contends that the amount of interim maintenance awarded by Court below in favour of opposite party 3 is not only irrational, harsh but also excessive. Consequently, the same is liable to be scaled down by this Court.
15. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present criminal revision. He submits that the order impugned in present criminal revision insofar as, an adverse inference regarding income of revisionist has been recorded by Court below, is perfectly just and legal. Court below has exercised it's jurisdiction diligently and not in a casual and cavalier fashion. In view of the fact that Court below upon appraisal and appreciation of the pleadings raised by the parties and the material on record, came to the conclusion that since both the parties are guilty of concealing true facts, therefore, in the very nature of things, the Court below had no other option but to draw an adverse inference against revisionist regarding his income and status. As such, no illegality has been committed by Court below in drawing an adverse inference against revisionist. It is on the basis of above that Court below has awarded interim maintenance in favour of the minor i.e. opposite party-3. In view of above, the order impugned is not liable to be interfered with.
16. Learned A.G.A. further contends that it is an undisputed fact that marriage of revisionist was solemnized with opposite party-2. From the said wedlock and cohabitation, a daughter i.e. opposite party-3 was born. As such, revisionist is the natural father of the minor daughter. Consequently, by reason of above, the revisionist is bound to maintain his minor daughter. Revisionist, therefore, cannot absolve himself of his liability to maintain his minor daughter as per his own status by raising trivial issues. Court below has calculated the amount of interim maintenance upon due consideration of the material on record and on the basis of an adverse inference drawn against both the parties. As such, Court below has neither committed a jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned nor has it exercised it's jurisdiction with such material irregularity, so as to vitiate the impugned order and warrant interference by this Court.
17. Apart from above, arrangement made by the Court below is interim in nature and shall ultimately, abide by the final adjudication to be made by Court below. Parties will have adequate opportunity to plead and prove their case/defence by leading evidence. As such, the arrangement made by Court below being interim in nature but in favour of the daughter of revisionist himself, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court at this stage. Moreover, revisionist is paying maintenance to his own daughter and no one else. Even otherwise, revisionist is legally and morally bound to maintain his minor daughter. Consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
18. Mr. Nanhe Lal Tripathi, the learned counsel representing opposite parties 2 and 3 and the revisionist in connected criminal revision namely Rashmi Ahuja has also assailed the order impugned dated 13.09.2022 passed by Court below. He contends that the order impugned insofar as, it rejects the claim of the wife Rashmi Ahuja is manifestly illegal and arbitrary. The same is unsustainable in law and fact. Once it is an admitted fact before Court below that opposite party-2 Rashmi Ahuja is the legally wedded wife of revisionist, therefore, she is clearly entitled to claim interim maintenance from revisionist. It has also come on record that opposite party-2 (wife of revisionist) along with her minor daughter has been residing separately after 18.10.2021. Opposite party-2 along with her minor daughter is residing separately on sufficient ground. As such, the condition precedent under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. for awarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is fully satisfied. However, irrespective of above, Court below has rejected the claim of the wife-opposite party-2 for grant of interim monthly maintenance on the basis of two findings; (A) Opposite party-2 has not approached the Court with clean hands as she has deliberately concealed her income and the factum regarding her doing job & (B) Opposite party-2 is living in adultery.
19. According to the learned counsel, both the findings returned by Court below for rejecting the claim of revisionist are not only illegal but perverse. In support of above, he invited the attention of Court to the impugned order and has referred to the recital occurring at page 15 of the paper book (internal page 5 of the certified copy of impugned order), which has already been quoted herein above.
20. With reference to above, he contends that once the Court below has itself concluded that both the parties are guilty of not approaching the Court with clean hands, there was no occasion before the Court below to further castigate opposite party-2 by observing that the degree of concealment by opposite party-2 is much more. He thus submits that when both the parties were founded to be guilty of concealing material facts then no exercise, as undertaken by Court below, was required to be undertaken. It is thus urged that rejection of the claim of opposite party-2 on aforesaid ground cannot be sustained as the said finding by itself is not so sufficient so as to deny the claim of monthly interim maintenance raised by opposite party-2.
21. With regard to the second finding recorded by Court below for denying interim maintenance to the wife, the learned counsel for revisionist-wife contends that the allegation of adultery alleged by the husband against his own wife is a serious issue and could not have been decided in a cursory manner at pre-trial stage. According to the learned counsel, the parties have not yet gone to trial. Therefore, there was no occasion before Court below to decide the plea raised on behalf of the husband-revisionist that the wife is living in adultery. The adjudication made by Court below at pre-trial stage, amounts to pre-empting the trial itself. In fact, in view of the determination made by the Court below that the wife is living in adultery amounts to virtual adjudication of the claim of revisionist-wife to claim monthly maintenance. In fact, there is nothing left to be decided by Court below qua the right of wife to claim maintenance. As such, the conclusion drawn by Court below for negating the claim of the revisionist-wife regarding grant of monthly interim maintenance is in excess of jurisdiction and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.
22. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that marriage of revisionist-Ruchir Ahuja was solemnized with Rashmi Ahuja on 03.02.2013 in accordance with Hindu Rites and Customs. As such, opposite party-2 Rashmi Ahuja, the revisionist in connected revision is the legally wedded wife of Ruchir Ahuja. In view of above, the revisionist Ruchir Ahuja is bound to maintain opposite party-2 Rashmi Ahuja. It also transpires from the record that out of the aforesaid wedlock, a daughter namely Chaarvi Ahuja was born. As such, revisionist Ruchir Ahuja is the natural father of opposite party-3 Chaarvi Ahuja. By reason of above, the revisionist Ruchir Ahuja is also bound to maintain his minor daughter. Record further reveals that opposite party-2 Rashmi Ahuja along with her minor daughter is living separately after 18.10.2021. However, there is nothing on record to show that revisionist has maintained his wife and minor daughter since then. As such, revisionist has failed to discharge his legal and moral obligation.
23. Admittedly, the Court below was dealing with an application for interim maintenance filed by the wife and minor daughter. By reason of above, the case was at pre-trial stage. In view of above, Court below was only required to examine prima-facie case of the parties and on account of the very nature of the proceedings, Court below ought to have refrained itself from recording a conclusive finding on any of the points one way or the other. The Court below in partial compliance of the aforementioned established legal principle recorded a prima-facie opinion by drawing adverse inference against the revisionist Ruchir Ahuja and therefore, awarded interim monthly maintenance in favour of the daughter @ Rs. 20,000/- per month.
24. The said conclusion drawn by Court below in favour of the minor daughter i.e. opposite party-3 Chaarvi Ahuja has been assailed both by the revisionist as well as by opposite party-3 herself. While the revisionist has disputed the quantum of interim monthly maintenance awarded by Court below, opposite party-3 has challenged the same on the ground that interim monthly maintenance awarded by Court below is irrational, inadequate and insufficient.
25. While on the one hand, the revisionist Ruchir Ahuja contends that since there was no such evidence on record of Court below on the basis of which, a definite finding could be recorded by Court below qua the income of revisonist, therefore, the amount of interim monthly maintenance awarded by Court below in favour of opposite party-3 Chaarvi Ahuja is based upon no evidence. As such, the same is liable to be set aside by this Court. The said contention has been opposed by opposite parties 2 and 3 i.e. the wife and minor daughter on the ground that once it is established that opposite party-3 is the minor daughter of revisionist and vice-versa, the revisionist being the natural father of the minor daughter i.e. opposite party-3, therefore, the revisionist cannot absolve himself of his liability to maintain his minor daughter. Furthermore, once the Court below had drawn an adverse inference to the effect that both the parties have concealed the true and correct facts regarding their income/salary, therefore, Court below drew an adverse inference against revisionist qua his income. In view of above, the conclusion drawn by the Court below to draw an adverse inference against revisionist qua his income cannot be said to be illegal, irrational or arbitrary. Furthermore, revisionist was in possession of the best evidence regarding his income. However, he deliberately concealed the same from Court below. As such, revisionist cannot be allowed to seek benefit of his own wrong. In view of above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the interim monthly maintenance has been rightly awarded by Court below in favour of opposite party-3 i.e. the minor daughter.
26. So far as the question regarding enhancement in the amount of interim monthly maintenance awarded by Court below in favour of opposite party-3/minor daughter Chaarvi Ahuja is concerned that Court below has prima-facie concluded that as per the status of the parties, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month towards interim monthly maintenance will be justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case. This assumption drawn by the Court below prima-facie does not inspire confidence inasmuch as, the Court below has not made any attempt to enquire into the expenses of the minor daughter i.e. opposite party-3 and further what would be the probable income of revisionist. Considering the hike in the basic price index and also the cost of living coupled with the fact that the minor daughter i.e. opposite party-3 is residing with her mother who is living in the state of separate living from her husband i.e. revisionist, the amount of monthly maintenance awarded by Court below cannot be said to be rational, adequate and sufficient.
27. There is an another aspect of the matter, Maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not like an ex-gratia payment but the legal enforcement of moral obligation on the part of the husband/father to maintain his wife and minor children. In consonance with above that Courts have repeatedly held that a claimant also has a right to live and not a right to exist. It is in line with above that Courts have also held that maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act should be such, which commensurates with the status of the parties, so that the wife and children are also able to lead the same standard of life as enjoyed by the husband/father. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, (2015) 5 SCC 705. In view of above and also the fact that Court below has not recorded any finding qua the income of the wife and since the liability to maintain a minor is upon both i.e. the father and the mother, therefore, the amount of interim maintenance awarded by Court below in favour of the minor daughter opposite party-3 cannot be said to be sufficient, adequate or justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
28. Considering the status of the parties, the observations made by Court below in the impugned order as well as the discussion made herein above, this Court finds that since the interest of the child i.e. opposite party-3, minor daughter is of paramount interest and Court being the ultimate guardian of the minor and considering the cost of her education, transportation and other expenses, the amount of interim monthly maintenance awarded by Court below in favour of the opposite party-3 i.e. the minor daughter is not liable to be interfered with.
29. Court below has negated the claim of the wife Rashmi Ahuja opposite party-2 and revisionist in the connected revision by concluding;- (a) the wife has not approached the Court with clean hands inasmuch as, she has deliberately concealed her income and the factum regarding her doing job and (b) opposite party-2 is living in adultery.
30. With regard to the first reasoning recorded by Court below as noted above, the Court finds that the same is perverse inasmuch as, the Court below at running page 5 of the certified copy of the impugned order has itself returned a finding that both the parties are guilty of concealing true and material facts. The appropriate observation made by Court below has already been extracted in paragraph 10 of this judgment. Having recorded the said observations, there was no occasion before Court below to further delve into the degree of concealment made by the parties. The Court below could have imposed certain costs and thereafter proceed to consider the material on record qua the income and status of opposite party-2 i.e. the wife Rashmi Ahuja, the revisionist in connected revision. In view of above, the first reasoning recorded by Court below for negating the claim of revisionist for grant of interim monthly maintenance is wholly unsustainable in law.
31. With regard to the second reasoning/finding recorded by Court below this Court finds that Court below was dealing with an application for grant of interim monthly maintenance in favour of opposite parties 2 and 3 i.e. the mother and daughter. Thus in the very nature of things, the parties had not yet gone to trial. Furthermore, even the issues/points of determination had not yet been framed by Court below. Therefore, in view of above, the Court below was only required to consider the claim of opposite parties 2 and 3 to the limited extent as to whether prima-facie the opposite parties 2 and 3 are entitled to claim monthly maintenance from the revisionist Ruchir Ahuja i.e. the husband/father.
32. However, Court below in ignorance of above, had undertaken a mini trial regarding the claims and objections of the parties and on basis thereof, had returned a conclusive finding that since the wife Rashmi Ahuja i.e. opposite party-2/revisionist in connected revision is living in adultery, therefore, she is not entitled to claim interim monthly maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as the condition precedent under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. is not satisfied.
33. The conclusion drawn by the Court below that since the wife is living in adultery and therefore, she is not entitled to claim interim monthly maintenance from the husband/revisionist Ruchir Ahuja is prima-facie unsustainable in law for more than one reason. Firstly the Court was dealing with an application for interim monthly maintenance. Secondly, even the issues/points of determination had not yet been framed. Thirdly, the parties had not gone to trial. Fourthly, plea of adultery raised by the husband is a serious issue and cannot be decided in a cursory manner but only after the evidence has been led and the said allegation has been put to acid test in the furnace of cross examination, which stage had not yet arrived. Fifthly, prima-facie, the marriage of the parties was admitted and therefore, required no further evidence to prove the same. Sixthly, even though the husband i.e. the revisionist alleged adultery against his own wife but no suit for divorce was filed even though a period of more than 2 years and 6 months had expired from the date occurring at internal page 7 of the impugned judgment. Seventhly, no explanation was offered by the revisionist regarding the above before Court below nor any observation in that regard has been made by Court below. Eighthly, since prima-facie it is established that opposite party-2 Rashmi Ahuja revisionist in connected revision is the legally wedded wife of revisionist Ruhir Ahuja and the marital relationship being in existence, therefore, the revisionist could not absolve himself of his liability to maintain his wife till the declaration was made by Court of competent jurisdiction regarding adultery committed by the wife or by the Court dealing with the matter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by recording a finding to the aforesaid effect. Lastly, Court below has thus pre-empted the trial by recording the aforesaid finding and virtually nothing remains to be decided by Court below and this procedure adopted by Court below cannot be sustained in any view of the matter.
34. In view of the discussion made above, no good ground for interference at the behest of Ruchir Ahuja, husband/father i.e. revisionist is made out.
35. As such, the prayer prayed for by means of Criminal Revision No. 4266 of 2022 (Ruchir Ahuja Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) is refused, whereas, in view of the reasons recorded in paragraph 29 of this judgment, Criminal Revision No. 4497 of 2022 (Rashmi Ahuja Vs. State of U.P. and Another) filed by the wife Rashmi Ahuja succeeds and is liable to be allowed.
36. It is, accordingly, allowed.
37. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.09.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Budh Nagar in Criminal Misc. Case No. 475 of 2021 (Smt. Rashmi Ahuja and Another Vs. Dr. Ruchir Ahuja), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Bita-2, District-Gautam Buddha Nagar insofar as, it rejects the claim for monthly maintenance raised by opposite party-2 i.e. the wife, Rashmi Ahuja/revisionist in connected revision is set aside.
38. The matter shall stand remanded only to the aforesaid extent before Court below. The Court below shall re-decide the claim of revisionist Rashmi Ahuja for grant of interim monthly maintenance with all expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. In case, an adjournment is inevitable, the same shall be granted on cost of Rs. 500/- per day which shall be paid to the revisionist and vice-versa.
39. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Order Date :- 06.05.2024
Vinay
