Uttarakhand High Court
Vijay Singh vs Smt. Jaimalti on 25 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Revision No.52 of 2013
Vijay Singh ........Revisionist
Versus
Smt. Jaimalti ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. R.C. Tamta, learned counsel for the revisionist.
Mr. Basant Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Harshpal Sekhon, learned counsel for the respondent.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This criminal revision has been preferred by the
revisionist against the judgment and order dated
05.02.2013, passed by the learned Family Judge, Kashipur,
Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No. 257 of
2010, Smt. Jaimalti Vs. Vijay Singh, whereby the
application moved by the respondent - wife - Jaimalti,
under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(for short "the Code") has been partly allowed and the
revisionist - husband - Vijay Singh, was directed to pay a
sum of `1500/- per month to the respondent - wife from the
date of moving the application for the maintenance and to
ensure to make payment on the seventh day of each month.
2. The instant revision is moved against the
aforesaid judgment and order dated 05.02.2013, mainly, on
the ground that the maintenance amount awarded by the
learned Family Judge, to the respondent - wife is excessive
and beyond the paying capacity of the revisionist, as he is
just a labour.
3. I have perused the impugned judgment as well
as the material available on record. It is admitted to both
the parties that their marriage had been solemnized on
16.02.2010, as per the Hindu rites and rituals and after
some time, a discord developed between them. According to
the respondent - wife, the cause of discord was demand of
dowry by the revisionist - husband from her and, her
parents, resulting, the respondent - wife to leave the
company of the revisionist - husband. After living
separately, the respondent - wife submitted an application
before the learned Family Judge and claimed `5,000/- per
month as maintenance from the revisionist - husband. It
has been specifically pleaded in the application under
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. that the respondent - wife being
a hardly educated woman is unable to maintain herself. As
against this, it was pleaded that the revisionist - husband
has one bigha of land in village and he is the only son of his
parents, who earned his livelihood by doing agriculture and
selling milk; and the respondent has a pucca house in the
village.
4. The revisionist - husband filed a reply/ objection
to the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. filed by the
respondent - wife. In the objection, the marriage was
admitted between the parties and the allegation of
harassing the respondent - wife was outrightly denied and it
has been pleaded that the respondent - wife took cudgels
with the family on the instigation of the outsiders of the
family.
5. The revisionist - husband denied any kind of
demand of dowry from either, respondent - wife or from her
family members. He pleaded that the respondent - wife was
skilled in sewing, knitting and embroidery work. The
revisionist -husband also pleaded in his objection that he
hardly earned any money, and he had old parents to look
after, who often fell ill. Both the parties, in order to
substantiate their case, filed their respective affidavit(s) and
were extensively cross-examined. The respondent - wife also
filed the affidavit of one Shri Narian Singh as a witness -
P.W.2 and the revisionist - husband, apart from him, also
got examined Brijlal and Ramesh by filing their affidavits as
D.W.2 and D.W.3. No documentary evidence was filed by
the respondent - wife, in support of her claim while the
revisionist - husband filed a photocopy of the compromise
entered into between them.
6. As per the legal mandate, the learned Court
below tried for re-conciliation between the parties, but
failed. Thereafter the learned Family Judge proceeded with
the disposal of the application moved under Section 125
Cr.P.C. by the respondent - wife. The learned Judge Family
Court also recorded a finding that on the basis of material
available on record, it is also proved that the respondent -
wife was harassed physically and mentally by the revisionist
- husband. According to the learned Family Judge, that was
the reason for the respondent - wife to live separately from
the revisionist - husband. The learned Family Judge did not
believe the submissions made on behalf of the revisionist -
husband and even the document of compromise Paper No.
31-C filed on behalf of revisionist - husband was disbelieved
by the learned Family Judge for the reason that it was the
photocopy of the compromise, which was not admissible in
evidence. The other reason for disbelieving the compromise
Paper No. 31-C was also given by the learned Family Judge
that the signature of the said compromise was also denied
by the revisionist - wife. A categorical finding has been
given by the Court below that the respondent no.2 was in
the habit of harassing his wife, and it was a justifiable
reason for her to live without the company of the revisionist
- husband.
7. So far as the income of revisionist - husband is
concerned, a finding has been recorded that in the absence
of any documentary evidence in the record, it could be
inferred in the given situation, that minimum `3000-4000/-
per month is earned by the revisionist - husband. On the
basis of aforesaid, a sum of `1500/- per month was
awarded as maintenance for the respondent - wife by the
learned Family Judge by reason of the judgment and order
dated 05.02.2013.
8. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment
and order dated 05.02.2013 for the reason that it is an
admitted fact that the parties are husband and wife. It has
also been recorded by the learned Court below that there is
discord between the parties which was a reasonable cause
for the respondent-wife for living separately and the
respondent no.2 being his wife, the revisionist is bound to
maintain her.
9. In the opinion of this Court, there is no illegality
in the impugned judgment and order passed by learned
Family Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case
No. 257 of 2010, Smt. Jaimalti Vs. Vijay Singh.
10. The present criminal revision is, accordingly,
dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
25.05.2023
Shubham
