Allahabad High Court
Mukeem @ Mukim Mian vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108275
Reserved on: 19.5.2025
Delivered on: 9.7.2025
In Chamber
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1563 of 2024
Revisionist :- Mukeem @ Mukim Mian
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Jaideep Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akhilesh Vishwakarma,G.A.,Sheeba Rizvi
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. The instant criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 31.1.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Rampur in Criminal Case No. 121 of 2018 (Smt. Shaida vs. Mukeem) under section 125 Cr.P.C.
2. By the impugned judgement and order, learned court below awarded Rs. 3,500/- as maintenance to the applicant Smt. Shaida from the date of filing of application dated 2.4.2018. The maintenance is directed to be paid on first of each calender month. It is also clarified in the impugned order that any interim maintenance obtained by the applicant in present case or proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act will be adjusted towards maintenance awarded in this judgement.
3. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.
4. Factual matrix of the case is that the original applicant Smt. Shaida, who is wife of revisionist, had filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the husband, Mukeem, who is opposite party in maintenance case, with averment that her marriage with opposite party was solemnized on 16.9.2017 according to Muslim rites and rituals in which her parents spent around Rs. 05 lakhs towards feast and dowry. However, just after two days of her Nikah, the opposite party and his family members started taunting her for giving less dowry and they started demanding Rs. 50,000/- cash, fridge, washing machine as additional dowry. On 10.10.2017 the opposite party and his family members tried to set her ablaze by pouring kerosene oil but coincidently her mother came to visit her and took her alongwith her. The applicant lodged F.I.R. at P.S. Kotwali Rampur vide Case Crime no. 567 of 2017, under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and of D.P. Act. She has also filed a complaint under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, which was registered as Complaint Case No. 4506 of 2017. The opposite party had got a divorce deed prepared in fraudulent manner on 25.12.2017 regarding which she has filed an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of CJM, Rampur. She is a home maker and has no source of income. She has taken shelter of her parental place on being deserted and tortured by opposite party. Her husband is a skilled artisan and derives Rs. 30,000/- monthly from his job. She prayed for Rs. 10,000/- as maintenance in her application.
5. The opposite party was summoned by the court below. He appeared and filed a written statement, wherein, he admitted the factum of marriage with the applicant as stated by the applicant but denied the other allegations made against him by the applicant. He stated that the applicant was sent to his place after the marriage but she left his home just after one hour taking pretext of heart ailment of her father and thereafter she never visited his place and no physical relationship established between them. She has not fulfilled his matrimonial obligations towards the opposite party. No feast was organized in the marriage of the parties as the applicant had contracted marriage with him by exerting pressure as it was a love marriage. The applicant had lodged F.I.R. against him prior to their marriage vide Case Crime no. 527 of 2017, under Sections 376, 323, 406 IPC and forced him to get married with her on strength of this FIR. The allegations of demand of dowry or torture are totally false and concocted.
6. Every effort was made by the District Legal Services Authority, Rampur (in short DLSA, Rampur) to reconcile the differences between the parties but got in no way and ultimately a consensual divorce deed/ Talaknama was filed before the Authority on a stamp paper. The original copy thereof has been filed with DLSA, Rampur. On the basis of this compromise, a final report was filed by the police in case of dowry harassment. The marriage between the parties has been dissolved according to Rules of Shariyat on 4.2.2018 through Sahar Kazi Madarsa, Furkania. The case under the Domestic Violence Act has already been dismissed. The applicant is a fraudster and she used to implicate gullible persons in her trap and extort money from them by leveling false charges of rape. She has also lodged FIR under section 376 IPC against Jagdish on 6.10.2019 and police has registered a case under sections 386, 389, 352, 504, 506, 147 IPC vide Case Crime no. 696 of 2019 at P.S. Ganj. Thereafter, on being apprised of falsity of the case against the applicant, she had stayed in jail and a final report filed in FIR lodged by her.
7. The applicant is a jobless person; he is not an artisan of Carchob; he maintains his family by engaging in manual work. The opposite party is not entitled to seek any maintenance from him as divorce has been affected between them on the basis of compromise/ divorce deed dated 25.12.2017; she never stayed with the answering opposite party; she stayed at his home for one hour and left him without sufficient cause; she is not entitled to seek any maintenance.
8. Learned court below framed six points of determination on the basis of pleadings of the parties. The applicant appeared as PW-1 and opposite party as DW-1. The parties also filed a documentary evidence, which is mentioned in the impugned order. Learned court below after appreciating the evidence on record gave a finding that the applicant Smt. Shaida is married wife of opposite party Mukeem; there is no evidence on record in support of version of opposite party that the applicant is engaged in job of stitching embroidery of Carchob; she is unable to maintain herself as she has no source of income. Although the opposite party has denied the version of the applicant that he works as a artisan and takes contract and also a GYM trainer and stated that he does nothing. He works as casual labourer from which he derives a paltry sum of money; he has also denied that he is monthly earning of Rs. 30,000/-. However, the court has estimated his notional income of Rs. 12,000/- per month which a person can usually earn by doing a GYM trainer work.
9. Learned court below has also placed reliance on the judgement of Shamima Farukhi vs. Shahid Khan, AIR 2015 Page 2025, Bhuvan Mohar Singh vs. Meena and another, 2014 Crl.L.J. Page 3979, Taufiq vs. State of UP and another, 2018(1) J.Cr.C. 786 and Prem Narayan vs. Meenadevi, 1988 J.Cr.C. 142 (All.), and concluded that on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, the court is of the conclusion that the applicant has been neglectful while paying maintenance to his wife. The opposite party admitted the fact that he has not filed any suit for restitution of conjugal rights. He has levelled bald allegation against the applicant but has failed to prove that he has scandalised the applicant in his pleadings. He has failed to adduce any evidence in support of his version that the applicant is a woman of bad character. The applicant has left the opposite party for sufficient and reasonable cause; the opposite party is not physically or mentally infirm, therefore, the applicant is entitled to seek maintenance from him.
10. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that he has paid Rs. 50,000/- through demand draft bearing date 1.5.2024 to the applicant Shaida on direction of this Court on 15.7.2024; he is himself victim of high-handedness and neglect of the applicant Shaida. Learned court below has passed the impugned order in mechanical manner without applying its judicial mind; he has also contended that both the parties had entered into a compromise before DLSA, Rampur on condition that the respondent-wife will withdraw all cases pending against the revisionist-husband and in pursuance of alleged compromise, final report was submitted in the case registered against the husband under sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and of D.P. Act but the respondent- wife preferred a protest petition before the ACJM, Rampur and same is pending since then. There is no evidence in support of the plea of respondent-wife that the revisionist is a GYM trainer.
11. He has filed his affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in compliance of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha. He has filed a copy of compromise dated 25.12.2017 as annexure to the present revision, wherein, the parties had undertaken to get their marriage dissolved by mutual consent in which it is stated that the revisionist has pronounced three words of Talaq to respondent-wife which she accepted; she also undertaken to withdraw all applications and cases filed by her against the revisionist and it is stated that if she proceeds in any action against first party/ husband and family members, same will be treated as void. Although the parties have agreed that they would not initiated any action against each other henceforth. However, the respondent has filed maintenance petition after said divorce/ compromise and has tried to be shown the same in her application under section 125 Cr.P.C. and further submitted that after filing of final report by the police in terms of the said compromise, respondent-wife had filed a protest petition before the court of ACJM, Rampur which was treated as complaint but the complainant had failed to adduce any evidence under section 202 Cr.P.C. and consequently, the protest petition / complaint was dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C. on 6.9.2021 and a copy thereof has been filed as annexure-9 to the present revision. He lastly submitted that the revisionist is neither in a position to pay maintenance to the applicant nor he is obligated to provide her any maintenance.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned court below is well reasoned and every aspect of the parties and their evidence has been duly considered therein. She is living separately from her husband since the year 2017 and this fact has not been denied by the revisionist but it is wrong to say that she stayed with him only for one hour after the marriage. She is an uneducated woman and there is no occasion for her to waive her right to seek maintenance from her husband in alleged compromise; she has never waived her right to seek maintenance from her husband.
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohtas Singh vs. Smt. Remendri (2000) 3 SCC 180 clarified that a divorced wife is entitled to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. unless she is disqualified under Section 125(4), such as living in adultery or refusing to live with her husband without sufficient reason. The court emphasized that once a divorce decree is passed, the wife is not entitled to maintenance for any period prior to the decree's passing under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
14. Bombay High Court in Ramchandra Laxman Kamble vs. Shobha Ramchandra Kamble and another vide judgement dated 21.12.2018 held in petition by relying of several decisions that " an agreement, in which wife gives up or relinquish her right to claim maintenance at any time in the future,is opposed to public policy and therefore, such an agreement, even if voluntarily entered, is not enforceable. The statutory right of a wife of maintenance cannot be bartered, done away with or negatived by the husband by setting up an agreement to the contrary."
15. In Shahnaj Bano vs. Babbu Khan, 1985 SCC OnLine Bom 200, it was observed that "even in a case covered by Clause (c) of Section 127 (3) of CrPC, where the wife has surrendered her rights voluntarily, in a given case, if after waiving her rights to maintenance, she becomes vagrant and destitute and is unable to maintain herself, then irrespective of her personal law, she would be entitled to avail statutory remedy for maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC".
16. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shamima Farukhi vs. Shahid Khan, AIR 2015 SC 1999, re-enforced the principle that maintenance should be realistic, reasonable and sufficient to enable a woman to live in a manner befitting her status and dignity. An able-bodied young man has to be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money so as to be able reasonably to maintain his wife.
17. In the present case, the revisionist appears to have concealed his income, therefore, learned court below had to fix his notional income as Rs.12,000/- per month, which a labourer can earn on monthly basis, if he is able bodied person. The amount of maintenance has been awarded to Rs. 3,500/- which is slightly more than 25% of said notional income and cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. Infact, this is minimum monthly amount for sustenance of a woman like respondent No.2 and no interference is warranted in the quantum of maintenance awarded to the applicant. The revisionist has failed to prove the allegations leveled against respondent No.2 that she is fraudster or extortionist even it is assumed that on the basis of compromise/divorce deed propounded by the revisionist, the divorce had taken place between the parties, the respondent No.2 cannot be said to have right to seek maintenance in the light of aforesaid case laws. I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below. The revision devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.
18. However, keeping in view the heavy amount of arrears of maintenance from the date of filing of application, it is directed that arrears of maintenance from the date of filing of application to June, 2025 shall be payable in six equal monthly installments, and apart from that the revisionist will pay and continue to pay maintenance to respondent No.2 on monthly basis from July, 2025 onward, failing which the court below shall be at liberty to proceed against him for realization of arrears and regular amount of maintenance.
19. The revision stands dismissed with above directions.
Order Date :- 9.7.2025
Dhirendra/
