In this criminal revision, the Court dismissed the challenge against the Family Court's order awarding maintenance to the wife and minor daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C., finding no jurisdictional error or illegality.
Revision dismissed; stay order, if any, vacated.
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. - 55
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1250 of 2004
Revisionist :- Sudhir Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sudhir Dixit Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Amit Kumar Mishra,Ranjeet Saxena
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
None present even in the revised list from the side of revisionist. Shri Amit Kumar Asthana, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ranjeet Saxena, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Learned A.G.A are present.
Heard on revision.
This revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 20.02.2004 passed by learned Family Court Judge, Agra in Criminal Case No. 297 of 1997 (Smt. Hemlata alias Hemu Vs. Sudhir Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C, Police Station Etmaudaulla Agra, District Agra by which maintenance of Rs. 500/- p.m has been awarded to the wife and Rs. 400/- p.m has been awarded to the minor daughter Twinkle.
Aggrieved by the judgement, this revision has been filed and impugned order has been challenged that the direction for paying maintenance has been passed from the date of maintenance application was filed and therefore the same is unjust and arbitrary and is not based on material available on record. The award amount is excessive and the same is not sustainable under law and therefore, is liable to be set aside.
From the perusal of the impugned judgement as annexed with this revision, it appears that an application was given by the wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C, alleging herself to be wife of opposite party Sudhir Kumar and it was stated that the husband and his family members were harassing and treating her with cruelty and they expelled her from the matrimonial home, threatening her that unless she will bring motor-cycle with her she will not be permitted to enter into the matrimonial home. F.I.R was also lodged from the side of wife. On 03.07.1996, a settlement took place between the two parties but again the husband and the family members created such situation that the husband and the wife started living separately in a rented house but the father-in-law and mother-in-law keep coming to their rented house and her harassment continued. On 08.05.1997, she was abused and marpeet was committed against her and she was thrown away from the matrimonial home and took shelter in the house of her parents. Since then, the husband is denying maintenance, he is earning Rs. 4,000/- p.m. A written statement was given by the side of the defendant, in which the marriage and the birth of the daughter out of their wedlock was admitted. He further stated that the wife is very arrogant and she use to pressurize him to live separately from his parents. When he refused she started doing all sorts of nuisance and nonsense and started threatening to implicate everyone in false cases. He started living with her in a separate house. She herself went to her parents and despite his all efforts she is not coming back to live with him. The wife is earning Rs. 5,000/- p.m by giving tuition, she is
unnecessarily living separately and she is not untitled for any maintenance. Both the sides gave evidence in their support and after hearing both the sides and perusing the evidence on record the impugned order was passed.
Learned Family Court found that the marriage is admitted between the parties and the birth of the child is also admitted. It was also found established that the husband is having enough income whereas the applicant and her daughter are not able to maintain themselves. The learned Family Court also found that it has been nowhere said from the side of husband that he is providing maintenance to wife. There is sufficient evidence on record showing that a sort of situation was created by the husband, so that she could leave the matrimonial house and live separately with her parents. Therefore, the learned Family Court found that the wife had reasonable cause to live separately and it was the legal duty of the husband to provide maintenance to her and her daughter, therefore, the impugned order awarding maintenance was passed.
In view of the above discussion, I find no material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgement nor there is any jurisdictional error. The revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is dismissed . Stay order, if any, shall stand vacated.
Order Date :- 6.12.2019/PS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order awarding maintenance to wife and minor daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is arbitrary and excessive.
Whether there was a jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the lower court's order.
Whether the revision lacks merit and should be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudhir Kumar
State of U.P.
Smt. Hemlata alias Hemu
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
