This criminal revision challenged a Family Court order granting Rs. 1400 monthly maintenance to a wife appealing cruelty and dowry harassment, where she also received Rs. 2000 for domestic violence.
The criminal revision was dismissed, upholding the lower court's order granting Rs. 1400/month maintenance.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 154 of 2016
Revisionist :- Smt. Pushpa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhaskar Bhadra,Pradeep Kumar Shukla,Vinod Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ashok Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 8.12.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Crl. Misc. Case No. 1191 of 2010 (Smt. Pushpa Vs. Vikrant) on application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. By the judgment and order dated 8.12.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly, opposite party no. 2 (Vikrant) was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 1400/- per month to his wife (Smt. Pushpa) from the date of order.
Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Pushpa Devi was married with Vikrant on 3.12.2009. When she went to her matrimonial home on 8.12.2009 she was subjected to cruelty and harassed by her husband and his family members in connection with demand of dowry. Due to which, she was compelled to leave her matrimonial home on 27.1.2010, since then she is living with her father. She is unable to maintain herself. The income of her husband is about Rs. 20,000/- per month.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that in the case of domestic violence, opposite party no. 2 (Vikrant) had admitted this fact that his monthly income is Rs. 5,000/- per month. Maintenance amount granted to the revisionist is too meagre.
Learned A.G.A., and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court.
On the basis of pay certificate of Sri Vikrant, learned Trial Court has assessed the monthly income of opposite party no. 2 (Vikrant) as Rs. 3500/- per month.
From the perusal of the judgment and order dated 8.12.2015, revisionist is also getting Rs. 2000/- per month from opposite party No. 2 (Vikrant) in reference to domestic violence.
In view of above, maintenance amount granted to the revisionist is not inadequate. Hence, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court.
Consequently, this criminal revision stands dismissed. Order Date :- 8.5.2018 Jaswant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the maintenance amount granted by the Family Court to the wife is inadequate given the husband's income.
Whether the impugned order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. suffers from any illegality.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Pushpa
State Of U.P.
Vikrant
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
Jaswant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
