Jharkhand High Court
Pradeep Kumar Agarwal @ Agrawal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Revision No.1636 of 2019
----
Pradeep Kumar Agarwal @ Agrawal .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Yogita Agrawal .... .... Opposite Parties
----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR
----
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anmol Anand, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.
----
The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsel for
the parties had no objections with it and submitted that the audio and video
qualities are good.
----
th
05/Dated: 14 February, 2022
1. The instant criminal revision application has been filed against the
impugned judgment dated 27.09.2019 passed by the learned Additional
Principal Judge, Additional Family Court, Dhanbad in Original Maintenance
No.307 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the application under Section 125
of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, has been allowed
and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.7,000/- per month to the
opposite party no.2 and Rs.3,000/- per month to his minor son as
maintenance.
2. Having heard the counsel for the revisionist and from perusal of the
records, it appears that the marriage and birth of the child out of the wedlock
are not in dispute. The wife has alleged harassment due to non-fulfilment of
the demand of dowry. The case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code as well as the Domestic Violence Act has been filed. In support, two
witnesses have been examined i.e. the wife and father of the wife. The
husband has filed the show-cause and has denied the allegation of
harassment. He has not led any evidence.
3. Considering the evidence brought on record and the pleading of the
parties, the court below has given the finding that the marriage is not in
dispute and birth of a child as well. The court below has found reason for not
residing with the husband reasonable. So far as income is concerned, oral
evidence has been led by the wife but no evidence has been brought on
record by the husband. Considering the same, the income of the husband has
been assessed as Rs.40,000/- per month and on such assessment Rs.7,000/-
per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.3,000/- per month to his minor
son has been awarded as maintenance from the date of order.
4. Counsel for the revisionist at this stage has brought on record some
documents and has tried to assail the quantum of maintenance stating that
the income of the husband has wrongly been assessed.
5. It is trite that the revisional court is supposed to look into the legality
and proprietary of the judgment. No evidence has been brought before the
court below and revisional court cannot allow to assail the same by bringing
new documents on record by the husband.
6. It is hereby noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the issue
that the maintenance has to be awarded from the date of Application. In the
present case, the maintenance has been awarded from the date of order
which is not in consonance with the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Accordingly, the same is modified to the extent that it will be payable from
the date of Application.
7. With above modification, the present criminal revision stands
disposed of.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.)
Amar/-
