Allahabad High Court
Shivish Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 22 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:92616
Judgment reserved on : 2.4.2024
Judgment delivered on : 22.5.2024
In Chamber
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 512 of 2024
Revisionist :- Shivish Kumar Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Girish Chandra Maurya,Kunwar Abhishek
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
In Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application
1. Heard leaned counsel for the revisionist-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.
2. Cause shown for delay is sufficient.
3. The delay in filing the instant revision is condoned, accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed.
In Re: Revision
4. The instant revision has been heard and is decided without issuing notice to the respondent-wife, because of the reasons; (i) a short issue of award of interim maintenance to the estranged wife is involved, (ii) it's observed in Rajnesh v. Neha and another1 case that maintenance is a social measure to prevent wives and children from falling into destitution and vagrancy, (iii) if the maintenance is not paid timely, it defeats the very object of the social welfare legislation, (iv) the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on 16.12.2022, and the same was decided on 6.11.2023, since then not even a single penny has been paid to the respondent-wife.
5. The instant criminal revision has been preferred assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 6.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur in Petition No.2618 of 2022 titled as Chandralekha Singh and others v. Shivish Kumar Singh, under section 125 Cr.P.C.
6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that respondent-wife had preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for award of maintenance on 16.12.2022. The Family Court, after conducting summary proceedings, awarded Rs.5000/- per month each to the two minor children, towards maintenance, from the date of filing of the application.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 6.11.2023, the revisionist-husband has preferred the instant revision petition.
8. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist-husband is that the Family Court has passed the order in a mechanical manner without applying its judicial mind; failed to appreciate the material on record; the respondent-wife is living separately on her own choice; the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily; the evidence put-forth by the respondent-wife are not admissible; the instant proceedings are abuse of process of law, and the findings are perverse and erroneous.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra2, has held that normally a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases.
10. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that on 29.4.2007, the parties have solemnized their marriage as per Hindu rites and rituals, and the parents of respondent-wife has given dowry articles as per their capacity, but the in-laws were not satisfied. Soon after the marriage, the in-laws of respondent-wife started raising additional dowry demand and torturing her, and forced her to live separately, thereafter, litigation started between the parties. On the basis of the pleadings and the statement of the respondent-wife, wherein she has stated that the revisionist-husband is Principal in a Government Primary School and draws a handsome salary and also runs a Junior High School from where he earns Rs.50,000/- per month, the Family Court has come to the conclusion that the revsionist-husband has sufficient means to pay Rs.5000/- per month each to the minor son and daughter, towards maintenance, from the date of filing of the application.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, and having heard learned counsel for the revisionist-husband, and having gone through the record as well as the impugned order, no material illegality or impropriety has been observed by this Court, at this stage. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.
12. The instant revision petition is devoid of merits, and is accordingly, dismissed.
13. However, it is directed to the learned Family Judge to ensure timely execution of impugned order of maintenance dated 6.11.2023 strictly in accordance with guidelines issued in Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P. and another3 case.
14. So far as the pending arrears of maintenance is concerned, the opporutnity is given to the revisionist-husband to approach the Famiy Court, and thereupon, he may request for payment of pending arrears in the installments, and if the revisionist-husband approaches, the learned Judge Family Court shall decide his request for payment of pending arrears in installments, after assessing the husband's financial capacity. Failing which, the proceeding in accordance with Rajnesh v. Neha and another case (supra) be initiated by the court. If the maintenance amount paid to the respondent-wife, in any other proceedings, the same shall be adjusted, accordingly.
15. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned forthwith for compliance.
Order Date :- 22.5.2024
Anil K. Sharma
Justice Vinod Diwakar
