Allahabad High Court
Kaushal Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:83696
Court No. - 85
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3634 of 2023
Revisionist :- Kaushal Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiv Raj Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. In the present criminal revision, the impugned judgement and order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah has been challenged whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by opposite party no.2 Smt. Umlesh Kumari was allowed partly and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.5,000/-per month to his wife as maintenance from the date of filing of the application.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist/husband that the impugned judgement and order is completely illegal and perverse and has been passed without properly appreciating the evidence on record. It is next submitted that when a dispute arose between the husband and wife, one time settlement was made between them according to which, a landed property was given in gift to the wife/opposite party no.2 by Brijendra Singh, the father of the revisionist and gift deed was executed accordingly on 20.03.2021. It is next submitted that the name of opposite party no.2/wife was also mutuated in the revenue record thereafter. It is further submitted that after one time settlement between the couple, opposite party no.2, the wife was not entitled to claim for maintenance from her husband, the revisionist but she moved an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. concealing the correct facts and the learned family court committed a grave mistake by partly allowing the aforesaid application and to direct the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to his wife as maintenance. It is next submitted that in view of that, the opposite party no.2 is not entitled to get any maintenance from the revisionist, the husband. It is also submitted that the impugned judgment and order consists of conflicting findings of the court and the observations of the said court that opposite party no.2 was subjected to cruelty and harassment and subsequently was ousted from her matrimonial house by the present revisionist and his family members and also observation regarding second marriage of the revisionist are totally erroneous and against the facts and evidence on record. It is also submitted that the minor son of opposite party no.2 has died and the minor daughter is living with the revisionist himself.
4. Per contra, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2/wife that the factum of alleged gift deed is completely wrong and false. No gift was ever executed in favour of opposite party no.2 wife. The learned Family Court committed not error in partly allowing the application moved by the opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and to direct the revisionist to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2. It is also submitted that the revisionist is a healthy person and he has all the capabilities to earn money to maintain himself and his wife and he is earning about Rs.50,000/- per month. In view of that, a prayer has been made to dismiss the present revision.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The learned Family Judge has made a scrutiny of the evidence on record and has drawn a conclusion that the opposite party no.2 is the legal wedded wife of the revisionist and since she was subjected to cruelty and assault by her in-laws, she has not committed any wrong in leaving her matrimonial house. The statement of P.W.1/opposite party no.2 has also taken into account by the family court wherein she has stated that she has purchased the agricultural land from her father-in-law. She is living in her parental house since 2018 and she is ready and willing to live with her husband, the revisionist if he is ready for the same. The opposite party no.2 had adduced sufficient evidence in connection with demand of bulero car as additional dowry by her in-laws. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Special Judge that opposite party no.2 was ousted from her matrimonial house after causing torture to her, is a correct and true finding based on evidence on record. The learned Family Judge has also taken into account the evidence rendered by both the sides and found that the claim of the present revisionist that opposite party no.2 is competent enough to maintain herself has not been proved by any cogent evidence. Since the revisionist has taken a specific plea that he has filed a case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights, the learned Family Judge has opined correctly that it is a proof of the fact that the revisionist is capable to maintain his wife. The finding of the family court that the revisionist is earning at least Rs.400/- per day is also proper. The factum of gift of agricultural land has not been admitted by wife, opposite party no.2. Although P.W.1, the wife has stated that she has purchased the agricultural land from her father-in-law but no document in support thereof has been submitted by the opposite party no.2, the wife but however the said gift deed was also not proved in legal manner by the present revisionist and that is why taking into account the entire evidence on record the learned Family Judge made an order directing the present revisionist to give Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance amount to his wife and I found no illegality and perversity in the said order.
7. Although it also appears from the perusal of the record and evidence that the wife opposite party no.2 is also a earning lady, the reliance has been placed on Shailja and another Vs. Khobbanna (2018) 12 Supreme Court Cases 199, Sunita Kachwaha and others Vs. Anil Kachwaha (2014) 16 Supreme Court Cases 715 & Chaturbhuj Vs. Sita Bai AIR 2008 SC 530 by opposite party no.2/wife and on the basis thereof, it has been vehemently argued that if the wife is earning something, it will not be the ground to reject her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
8. Further, from the perusal of the impugned order it reveals that the concerned Family Court has directed for payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 - wife from the date of filing of the application and the said order is completely in compliance of directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & another in Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2020 (arising out of SLP (Cr.l.) No.9503 of 2018). It also appears that in compliance of the directions given in the impugned order, the revisionist has not paid even a single penny to the opposite party no.2 wife so far.
9. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussions, the settled law on the point and also keeping in view the conduct of the revisionist that he even having sufficient means and capacity neglected and refused to maintain his wife, the opposite party no.2, in my view, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity The revision being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and the order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah in case No. 365 of 2019 (Umlesh Kumar Vs. Kaushal Kishore) under Section 125 CrPC, District Etawah is liable to be affirmed.
10. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.5.2024
Shivangi
