Smt. Abhilasha vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 10119 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Abhilasha vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 September, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:154923
 
Reserved on 14.08.2025
 
Delivered on 03.09.2025
 
Court No. - 91
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1999 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- Smt. Abhilasha
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Singh,Jitendra Prakash
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Dushyant Singh,G.A.,M.C. Singh,Shubham Dwivedi,Tejasvi Misra
 

 
Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.
 

1. Heard Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Gaurang Tiwari, holding brief of Shri Tejasvi Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

2. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2024 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahr in Criminal Misc. Case No. 969 of 2021 (Smt. Abhilasha & others Vs. Lekhraj), under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, P.S. Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr, whereby the court below partly allowed the case, rejected the maintenance claim of the revisionist-Smt. Abhilasha and further directed the opposite party no.2 to pay Rs.4,000/- per month each to the daughters of the revisionist from the date of application i.e. 07.09.2021.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 on 18.05.2013 as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals. The parents of the revisionist had given sufficient dowry to the opposite party no.2. After sometimes, the opposite party no.2 and his other family members had demanded Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and a Swift Car in the form of additional dowry. On account of non-fulfilment of the additional demand of dowry, the opposite party no.2 and his family members started harassing the revisionist, physically and mentally. During this period, the revisionist gave birth to a girl child, due to which the opposite party no.2 became more angry and tried to kill the revisionist and further on 11.10.2015, the opposite party no.2 and his other family members taken away her streedhan and committed marpeet and ousted her from the matrimonial house. Feeling unsafe, the revisionist was compelled to lodged an FIR against the opposite party no.2 and his other family members, which was registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The opposite party no.2 and his other family members to save their skin from the clutches of law compromised the matter on the assurance that they will not commit any kind of cruelty with the revisionist in future. During the course of second pregnancy, the opposite party no.2 did not change his behaviour and send the revisionist to her parental house where she gave birth to second girl child. After sometimes, the opposite party no.2 took the revisionist with her and again started committing cruelty and harassment and repeatedly started demanding more dowry, hence on non-fulfilment of the aforesaid dowry demand on 02.08.2019, they badly beaten the revisionist and thrown her in front of her parental house. Thereafter, a first information report has been lodged, which was registered vide case crime no. 217 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 147, 323, 342 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Aurangabad, District Bulandshahr. The revisionist was medically examined. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the matter. Since then the opposite party no.2 did not pay a single penny to the revisionist with regard to her maintenance. Hence, being aggrieved the revisionist had preferred the above-noted maintenance case before the Family Court, which was partly allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the Principal Judge, Family Court without considering the evidence available on record, in a routine and mechanical manner, partly allowed the case vide order dated 19.02.2024, by which the trial court rejected the claim of the revisionist and allowed the maintenance claim of both the baby girls to the tune of Rs.4000/- per month each since the date of filing of the application i.e. from 07.09.2021. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that on the basis of false and fabricated averments of the opposite party no.2, the trial court illegally and wrongly rejected the claim of the revisionist.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist further argued that the trial court without assigning any reason held that the revisionist is living separately from her husband, hence she did not entitle for maintenance from her husband and straight way rejected the claim of the revisionist. Learned counsel further submits that the opposite party no.2 and his other family members badly beaten the revisionist, she was medically examined in a government hospital, wherein six serious nature of injuries were found on her body but the learned trial court while passing the impugned order dated 19.02.2024 did not consider this aspect of the matter and illegally rejected the claim of the revisionist for maintenance.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that the opposite party no.2 and his family members have never demanded any sort of dowry from the revisionist or from her parents. He further submits that from the very beginning the behaviour of the revisionist towards the opposite party no.2 and his family members has been extremely rude.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submits that the opposite party no.2 had taken the revisionist and his daughters with him at his place of posting for disbursement of his services but irrespective of the efforts made by the opposite party no.2, no change in the nature of the revisionist was seen. The revisionist often involved in quarrel with the opposite party no.2 in some petty issues. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also submits that the revisionist is living separately from the opposite party no.2 without any sufficient cause, therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected her claim for maintenance.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. From the record, it appears that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the opposite party no.2 on 18.05.2013 as per the Hindu Rites and Rituals. It is also not in dispute that from the wedlock of the revisionist and the opposite party no.2, two girl children were born out and this fact was also proved from the finding recorded by the trial court that the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of the opposite party no.2 and two children have born from their wedlock.

10. So far as the finding of the trial court with regard to separate living of the revisionist is concerned, I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court, and find that revisionist-wife in her cross-examination has stated that after giving birth to a girl child, some dispute arose on account of giving birth to a female child. However, she admitted that she had been living with her husband at his place of posting. She further stated that, she gave birth to her second girl child on 03.02.2019, the opposite party no.2 and her family members were not happy due to second birth of second girl child. She has also stated in her cross-examination that Lekhraj-opposite party no.2 started torturing her on account of giving birth to second girl child and opposite party no.2 continued to torture her and she is afraid of being killed in her matrimonial house.

11. That the opposite party no.2 has admitted in his cross-examination that, in the year 2015, a criminal case was registered against him and his entire family members, under Sections 498-A, 137, 323, 342 IPC and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, which was culminated in acquittal on the basis of compromise but this aspect of the matter was not considered by the trial court while deciding the case.

12. Since, the revisionist had given birth to two girl child and therefore, she was being tortured by the opposite party no.2 and his family members on account of not giving birth to a male child and hence, a criminal case was also lodged by her against the opposite party no.2 and his other family.

13. Admittedly, the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized in the year, 2013 and in the year 2015 criminal case was registered against the opposite party no.2 and his other family members, even then in the year 2019 the revisionist gave birth to second daughter, which goes to show that despite constrained relationship between the parties, the revisionist continued to live with opposite party no.2 after compromise in the aforementioned criminal case.

14. It is also stated that when the revisionist was at the advance stage of second pregnancy, she requested the opposite party no.2 to take her with him at his place of posting for the well being of her second child but the opposite party no.2 refused to do so and the second daughter was born at the parental house of the revisionist. However, in cross-examination, she stated that she does not want to go with the opposite party no.2 but there is no evidence on record that prior to filing application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. the opposite party no.2 has made any effort to take her back with him.

15. Mere one time denial that too in a court during the cross-examination of the revisionist cannot be considered sufficient to hold that she was willing to reside separately without any reason from her husband, because it was just a reaction of the opposite party no.2 of the circumstance existing at that time, no question was put to her why she does not want to go with her husband, in that view of matter, the finding recorded by the court below with regard to separate living without any reasonable cause is perverse and against the facts.

16. So far as the income of the opposite party no.2 is concerned, it is admitted by the opposite party no. 2 himself that he is a government employee, working as Head Constable in S.S.B. and is getting salary of Rs.67,000/- per month.

17. The trial court while passing the impugned order held that the present revisionist is unable to maintain herself and her children, despite this aspect of the matter, no maintenance amount has been awarded to the revisionist.

18. From the perusal of the judgment it also transpires that the trial court has rejected the claim of the revisionist on the ground that since she is living separately without sufficient cause and this aspect of the matter has not been proved by adducing any documentary evidence.

19. In view of the discussions made herein-above, the finding recorded by the trial court with regard to separate living of the present revisionist is totally perverse and against the facts available on record, therefore, to this extent the findings of the trial court rejecting the claim of maintenance qua the present revisionist, deserves to be set aside.

20. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision is partly allowed. The finding of the trial court denying the maintenance qua the present revisionist is concerned, is hereby set aside and the other findings regarding grant of maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month each to Kumari Tripti Singh and Kumari Jagriti Singh, both daughters of the revisionist, are hereby affirmed. The trial court is directed to decide the matter with regard to grant of maintenance to the present revisionist afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

Order Date : 03.09.2025

Prajapati RK

(Madan Pal Singh, J.)