Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Nafees vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 August, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:129956
Reserved on: 24.07.2025
Delivered on: 01.08.2025
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1997 of 2023
Revisionist :- Mohd. Nafees
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Devesh Kumar Shukla,Irfan Ahmad Malik
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Syed Shahnawaz Shah
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. This criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by revisionist-Mohd. Nafees challenging the judgment and order dated 08.02.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.-1, Meerut in Case No. 932 of 2017 (Smt. Iram Vs. Mohd. Nafees) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Inchauli, District-Meerut, whereby aforementioned case has been allowed. Consequently, the revisionist has been directed to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party-2 from the date of application.
2. I have heard Mr. D.K. Shukla, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Syed Shahnawaz Shah, the learned counsel representing complainant-opposite party-2.
3. Perused the record.
4. Record shows that marriage of opposite party-2 was solemnized with revisionist on 28.11.2014 in accordance with Muslim Rites and Customs. Opposite party-2 is working as Head Constable in U.P. Police and posed at Saharanpur, where he has also been allotted a government accommodation.
5. It is apposite to mention here that the marriage of opposite party-2 is the second marriage as she had been divorced by her first husband namely Shahid. The revisionist had also performed second marriage with opposite party-2 as his first wife had died. It is the case of opposite party-2 that demand of dowry was raised against her. According to opposite party-2, she was assaulted by the revisionist and her family members on 08.04.2015. Ultimately, on 19.04.2015, opposite party-2 is alleged to have been ousted from her marital home. She, therefore, lodged a criminal case against revisionist and his family members, which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 189 of 2015, under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 506, 354A(1) IPC and Sections ¾ Dowry and Prohibition Act. Opposite party-2 alleges herself to be a 'pardanashin lady' and incapable of earning her livelihood. As there as no income of opposite party-2, therefore, in order to overcome despair and destitution faced by her, she initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by way of an application dated 14.12.2017. Same was registered as Case No. 932 of 2017 (Smt. Iram Vs. Mohd. Nafees) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Inchauli, District-Meerut.
6. Claim raised by opposite party-2 regarding payment of monthly maintenance by the husband i.e. revisionist was opposed by the revisionist. Though, the factum of marriage of revisionist with opposite party-2 was admitted, however, it was pleaded on behalf of revisionist that opposite party-2 solemnized marriage with the revisionist without obtaining divorce from her first husband. As such, opposite party-2 solemnized marriage with revisionist by playing fraud. On 18.04.2015, opposite party-2 is alleged to have entered into a fight with the sister, mother and children of revisionist, on account of which, NCR No. 52 of 2015 was registered. It was also pleaded on behalf of revisionist that opposite party-2 is a cruel lady with independent mentality. She is capable of maintaining herself. Revisionist has the liability of his old parents, present wife and children born from the wedlock of revisionist and the first wife. As such, no maintenance is liable to be awarded by Court in favour of the complainant/opposite party-2. As per the defence of the revisionist, it is thus apparent that revisionist has solemnized another marriage.
7. Since the parties were at issue on different Courts, therefore, they went to trial. Evidence was adduced by the parties in support of their respective cases. Same has been noted by Court below in paragraphs 3 and 4 at internal page 3 of the impugned order.
8. Court below in order to effectively decide the issues, which emerged before it as per the pleadings of the parties framed the following points of determination;-
(i). Whether opposite party-2 is the legally wedded wife of revisionist?
(ii). Whether opposite party-2 is residing separately from the revisionist on account of sufficient cause and whether opposite party-2 has been ignored by the revisionist?
(iii). Whether opposite party-2 is capable of maintaining herself or not?
(iv). Whether revisionist has sufficient income to maintain?
(v). Relief.
9. Court below upon examination and evaluation of the pleadings raised by the parties as well as the evidence adduced by them, answered all the points of determination in favour of opposite party-2. Court below concluded that therefore, opposite party-2 is the legally wedded wife of revisionist. Revisionist has ignored his wife and opposite party-2 is residing separately from the revisionist on sufficient grounds. Revisionist is able to maintain himself and his family members. In the facts and circumstances of the case, opposite party-2 is entitled to claim maintenance, which must commensurate with the status of revisionist, who is working as Head Constable in U.P. Police. Accordingly, Court below awarded a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party-2 towards monthly maintenance but from the date of application, vide order dated 08.02.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.-1, Meerut.
10. Thus feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, revisionist has now approached this Court by means of present criminal revision.
11. Mr. D.K. Shukla, the learned counsel for revisionist vehemently submitted that the order impugned in present criminal revision is manifestly illegal and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.
12. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for revisionist contended that opposite party-2 is residing separately on insufficient grounds. In fact, opposite party-2 herself committed cruelty upon revisionist and her family members and had ultimately abandoned him. The maintenance awarded by Court below is not only harsh but also excessive inasmuch as, the same does not commesurate with the facts and circumstances of the case. Court below has failed to consider the family condition of the revisionist and the number of persons, who are dependent upon him. Much emphasis was laid upon the fact that opposite party-2 is a lady of sufficient means and therefore, able to maintain herself. On the above grounds, it was thus contended before this court that Court below has erred in law in allowing the claim of maintenance raised by opposite party-2. Court below has illegally awarded maintenance to opposite party-2 from the date of application. He, therefore, contended that present criminal revision is liable to be allowed and the order impugned is also liable to be set aside.
13. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State/opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. Learned A.G.A. submitted that Court below, in order to decide the issues between the parties as had emerged on the basis of pleadings raised by them, framed five points of determination. All the five points of determination framed by Court below have been answered in favour of opposite party-2. He, therefore, contended that unless the findings returned by Court below on each of the point of determination so framed are dislodged as being illegal, perverse or erroneous, the conclusion drawn by Court below cannot be altered. He, therefore, contended that the submissions urged by the learned counsel for revisionist in support of present criminal revision may though appear to be fanciful and attractive but they did not create a dent in the finding returned by Court below in the order impugned. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present criminal revision.
14. On the other hand Mr. Syed Shahnawaz Shah, the learned counsel representing complainant-opposite party-2 also opposed the present criminal revision. Apart from adopting the submissions urged by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to present criminal revision, he further submitted that in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324, maintenance has to be awarded from the date of application and not from the date of order. As such, no illegality has been committed by Court below in awarding maintenance to opposite party-2 from the date of application. It is then contended by the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 that in the present case, the revisionist is a government servant. He is working as Head Constable in U.P. Police. It is also fairly settled that the amount of maintenance awarded by Court below under Section 125 Cr.P.C. must commensurate with the status of the parties, as the party seeking maintenance has a right to live and not a right to exist. When the order impugned is judged, in the light of above, no illegality or perversity can be attached to the same. Admittedly, opposite party-2 is the legally wedded wife of revisionist. She has been ousted from her marital home on 19.04.2015. However, there is nothing on record to show that revisionist has maintained his wife since then. As such, revisionist has failed to discharge his legal and moral obligation towards opposite party-2. Though certified copy of the sale deed dated 10.08.2018 was filed before Court below but with the aid of above, no attempt was made to prove that opposite party-2 is the real owner or ostensible owner nor any attempt was made to cross examine the revisionist on the said point. It is the case of opposite party-2 that separate arrangement was made by her parents for her survival. No rebuttal evidence was filed by the revisionist to demonstrate that the consideration in respect of the sale deed was paid by opposite party-2 herself. On the above premise, it was thus contended by the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 that the order impugned cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. Court below in passing the order impugned has neither committed a jurisdictional error nor there is any perversity in the order impugned. He, therefore, urged that present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.
15. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist could not dislodge the same with reference to the record.
16. Having heard, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1, the learned counsel representing complainant/opposite party-2 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the order impugned. No perversity in the order impugned could be pointed out by the learned counsel for revisionist either. Court below in order to decide the issues between the parties, which emerged on the pleadings raised by them, framed 5 points of determination. Furthermore, perusal of the impugned order goes to show that Court below has taken into consideration, the pleadings raised by the parties as well as the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of parties. It is only after undertaking aforementioned exercise that Court below has answered each of the issues so framed for effectively deciding the dispute between the parties. Counsel for the revisionist could not dislodge the findings returned by Court below on the issues so framed as being illegal, perverse or erroneous. It is well settled by now that if the findings could not be dislodged, the conclusion cannot be altered. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present criminal revision.
17. In view of the discussion made above, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.
18. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 01.08.2025
Vinay
