Allahabad High Court
Ravi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:36172
Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 6384 of 2023
Revisionist :- Ravi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Girish Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
As per office report notice has been served upon respondent No.2 through legal heir (father). None appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 in present revision.
Instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against the the judgment and order dated 23.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, Bareilly in Maintenance Case No. 748(572) of 2018 (Smt. Seetal Vs. Ravi) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; Whereby Rs.2,500/- has been awarded pendente-lite maintenance and thereafter Rs.5,000/- per month as future maintenance. However, the operative portion is not happily worded and some ambiguity has crept in the said order.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 26.11.2017 according to hindu rites and rituals. Respondent No.2 left the house of revisionist on 24.04.2018 just after six months of the marriage. Revisionist and his family members kept respondent No.2 in their home with full love and affection, but her behaviour with family was not proper, she would often pickup quarrel with the revisionist and his family members without any rhyme and reason. She would often give threatening to go to her parental place and leave the revisionist. Revisionist visited respondent No.2 at her parental place and tried to persuade her to come back to his home. The revisionist had submitted an application before the Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra, Bareilly which was headed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bareilly where both the parties were present, but even then respondent No.2 refused to come back to her matrimonial home. Respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 05.07.2018 claiming maintenance for herself, wherein she had made prayer of maintenance for a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month on the basis of false allegations. Respondent No.2 has also filed an application for interim maintenance with false allegations.
Learned court below has passed the impugned order without considering the evidence of the parties in proper perspective and learned court below has awarded maintenance Rs.2,500/- as pendente-lite maintenance and Rs.5,000/- as future maintenance in the impugned judgment and order dated 23.08.2023. However, the wording of operative order is highly ambiguous and contradictory, as in the operative order at one place it is stated that opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant from the date of filing of application and on other place it is stated that opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,5,000/- as maintenance from the date of filing to application to date of judgment. It is also directed in the impugned order that the pendente-lite maintenance will be paid to the applicant in four monthly installments. First installment will be payable within two months of the judgment and second installment will be payable just after four months of the judgment. Any amount obtained by the applicant in any other proceedings will be liable to be adjustment.
He next submitted that in paragraph No.3 of the judgment that respondent No.2 was working in Jagdamba Company and her monthly income was Rs.10,000/-, her identity card was also produced before the court. Respondent No.2 has only stated that she has left her job, but she has not specified as to when and how she left the job. Therefore, it is presumed that she is still working in Jagdamba Company. He further submitted that revisionist had produced himself as well as his father Medhai Lal in evidence in support of his defence. Applicant's mother has admitted in her cross examination that her daughter is living with her husband since 24.04.2018, she has not been paid any maintenance since then, she never met her daughter when she was residing at her matrimonial home.
Respondent No.2 had left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause and therefore her claim for maintenance is barred under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. The revisionist has taken a specific plea in his written statement that applicant would often threaten to commit suicide; she used to go to her parental place without informing revisionist and his family members. She used to talk to her friends and acquaintances in the night, and when revisionist would caution her to restrain from doing this, she used to hurl threats to him. She left the place of revisionist on 06.05.2018 alongwith her ornaments and since then she is residing at her parental place; she had consumed mosquito repellent (Allout) and opposite party has got her admitted in hospital and had borne her medical expenses. Applicant had given a statement in writing that she will not live with her husband.
He lastly submitted that revisionist is jobless, he works as a casual labourer even in the impugned judgment also there is no finding regarding his source of income, and the learned court below has wrongly estimated his monthly income as Rs.15,000/- on assumption that even an able bodied labourer can earn Rs.15,000/- per month and opposite party is under legal, social and moral obligation to maintain his legally wedded wife.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below and the amount to respondent No.2 in the impugned order is itself on lower side and this is minimum amount for sustenance of a woman and it need not interference in the present revision.
On a perusal of impugned judgment and material on record, it appears that marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 26.11.2017. The respondent No.2 has made an allegation in application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry by her husband and in-laws, they have even hatched a conspiracy to kill her. On 24.05.2018 her husband and in-laws engaged in marpeet with her and hatched a conspiracy to kill her and for that purpose a suicide note is written and they had forcefully administered some spurious substance to her and on consuming that her condition got worsen, the neighbours reached the place on hearing shouts of the applicant and challenged her husband and in-laws and then her husband and in-laws took her to Rudrapur Bathla Clinic, where she remained admitted for two days. When her parents reached there, the opposite party and his family members escaped from the place and thereafter her parents had borne her medical expenses. She has also stated in application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that opposite party is possessed of 7 Bigha agricultural land and his monthly income from all sources is Rs.35,000/- per month.
Learned court below has given a finding that on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties that opposite party is under legal, moral obligation to maintain his wife, the applicant has not been deserted her husband, but she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to circumstances which emerged there. Therefore applicant is living separately from her husband due to sufficient cause. The applicant has stated in her affidavit filed in compliance of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court that she is not possessed of independent income, she was earlier employed in Jagdamba Enterprises prior to marriage from where she got Rs.7,000/- per month as salary; on account of fracture in leg of her father; she is not in the said job at present. She has denied the defence suggestion that she is still in said job.
Learned court below has rightly observed in the impugned judgment that there is no evidence on record in support of the fact that applicant is still is said job. The revisionist has neglected to maintain his wife and he has paid nothing to her after her hospitalization, on consumption of spurious liquid. She is not able to able to maintain herself.
I find no, factual or legal error in the findings made by learned court below in impugned judgment and order, however, the learned court below has rightly observed in the impugned order that even on assuming that no specific estimation of the income of the revisionist can be made due to lack of evidence, he being an able bodied person is supposed to derive an income of Rs. 5,000/- per month.
However, keeping in view that fact that amount of maintenance has been awarded on the basis of presumptive income of the revisionist some minor deduction in future maintenance is called for. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case the amount of maintenance Rs.2,5000/- awarded in the impugned order from the date of filing of application to date of judgment is not interfered with. However, the amount of future maintenance awarded to Rs.5,000/- per month, is reduced from Rs.5,000/- per month to Rs.4,000/- per month. The other terms and conditions laid down in the impugned and judgment and order are not interfered with.
The revision is partly allowed, in the manner.
Order Date :- 12.3.2025
Ashish/-
