Allahabad High Court
Pramod @ Ajeet vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37305
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4791 of 2023
Revisionist :- Pramod @ Ajeet
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Raj Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Instant Criminal Revision has been directed against judgment and order dated 27.07.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah in Maintenance Case No.399 of 2021 (Smt. Rinki and another Vs. Pramod @ Ajeet) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Balrai, District Etawah. Whereby a sum of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- per month has been awarded to the applicants respectively, who are wife and son of the revisionist.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that this is admitted fact that marriage of revisionist was solemnized with respondent No.2 Smt. Rinki on 21.04.2016 according to hindu rites and rituals. The respondent No.2 who is wife of the revisionist has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court on 24.09.2021, wherein she has made a false allegations of demand of dowry, practicing matrimonial cruelty, harassment and torture against opposite party, who is present revisionist before this court.
He next submitted that a son namely Ankur was born out of wedlock of spouse on 14.06.2019. The revisionist had never deserted his wife, she was having relationship with one Dharmendra and she is still residing with him after deserting the revisionist.
He next submitted that FIR was lodged by the revisionist against the said Dharmendra on 21.09.2020 under Sections 376, 380 IPC regarding the incident of 25.06.2020, when he had found the said Dharmendra in the room of his wife who was engaged in some filthy act with his wife. He again noticed him on 19.09.2020 in the late night at 01:15 am alongwith his wife, and after seeing him he fled away from the place of incident. However, said criminal case was compromised later. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has also filed a case under Section 498A IPC and Section of D.P. Act, in which mediation has been directed by this Court and same is still pending.
He also submitted that learned court below has fixed monthly income of the revisionist as Rs.12,000/- per month on presumption that even if, he works as a labourer he would be getting Rs.12,000/- per month from manual labourer. Apart from that he is also having two bigha agricultural land, in fact revisionist had to take care of his own mother also and if the estimated income of the revisionist as stated the impugned order is considered as Rs.12,000/- per month, it is not physically possible for him to pay Rs.7,000/- as maintenance to the applicants who are his wife and son, as only Rs.5,000/- has been remained with him to maintain himself as well as his mother, who is dependent on him. This is admitted fact that father of the revisionist is not alive.
He lastly submitted that respondent No.2 had herself left the revisionist without any sufficient cause and now as per information, she is residing with one Dharmendra against whom revisionist has lodged an FIR earlier.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that father of the revisionist is no more. Revisionist and his brother could have inherited the said agricultural land, revisionist has stated that he works as a sweet maker (Halwai) and this fact is not denied that he is having 2 bigha agricultural land also as stated by the respondent No.2. Therefore, learned court below has estimated the monthly income of the revisionist as Rs.12,000/- based on presumption that he work as a labourer to earn said amount in a month, if agricultural income is added in said Rs.12,000/- per month, his monthly income increases substantially. There is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned court below and same is based on due appreciation and evidence based on record.
On perusal of impugned judgment and order it appears that marriage of revisionist was solemnized with respondent No.2 on 21.04.2016 and was blessed with male child on 14.06.2019 who is around six years of age at present. The applicant has levelled allegations of demand of dowry, cruelty, torture and harassment against opposite party and he stated that she had left her parental place alongwith her newly born son in the year 2020. He brought her back after some understanding developed between the parties in a Panchayat, but again the opposite party/revisionist and his family members started harassing and torturing the applicant No.1 and she again left her parental place.
Learned court below had summoned the opposite party who appeared and filed his statement, wherein she has denied all the allegations of factum of marriage and birth of a child born out of wedlock of applicant No.1, but has denied the allegations of demand of dowry, matrimonial cruelty, torture and harassment levelled against him by the applicant.
Learned court below has failed to appreciate the evidence adduced during hearing of the case, he has given a finding that opposite party has tried to assassinate the character of the applicant with allegation that she is having relationship with some Dharmedra against whom he had lodged an FIR under Section 376, 380 IPC. He has admitted that since the wife is residing separately alongwith child. He has not paid any maintenance to them. It is observed that in absence of evidence, the aspersion made by the opposite party against his wife regarding her character cannot be accepted.
Learned court below submitted that applicant is not able to maintain herself and her minor son, whereas opposite party has admitted that he works as a labourer in Sweet Shop. Learned court below has estimated his monthly income is Rs.12,000/- and has also observed that apart from that he owns two bigha agricultural land and he is able to maintain his wife and son, with this finding learned court below has awarded Rs.7,000/- as maintenance to the applicant as stated above.
Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and totality of the facts and circumstances of the case. Finding of fact recorded by the learned court below which is based on evidence appearing on record. I find no substantial, factual or legal error in the impugned judgment and order.
However, keeping in view the fact that revisionist has also to take care of his mother apart from himself and his monthly income is not strictly proved on record, some slight variation is required in quantum of maintenance awarded in the impugned judgment. Therefore, it is directed that the quantum of maintenance awarded to the applicant No.1 is reduced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. The quantum of maintenance awarded to the applicant No.2 will remain intact. The other conditions imposed in the impugned order are not being interfered.
The revision is partly allowed with above directions.
Order Date :- 17.3.2025
Ashish/-
