Single judge criminal revision against dismissal of wife's maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Court dismissed revision, upholding lower order as no reasonable cause for living separately was established based on wife's admission.
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. - 1666 of 2007
Revisionist :- Smt. Narendri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- R.K. Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,P.K.Tripathi
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. No one is present on behalf of opposite party no. 2 even in revised call.
This revision has been filed by the revisionist-wife against the judgement and order dated 18.4.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No. 528 of 2004: Smt. Narendri Vs. Deep Chand, whereby application of wife under section 125 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
Aggrieved by that order of dismissal, this revision has been filed challenging the same on the ground that said application was wrongly rejected and the order is against law. The impugned judgement has been passed in a very mechanical manner and the plea of wife was not considered, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
From perusal of lower court record and the impugned judgement, it is clear that it is admitted fact that both are husband and wife. It is also clear as the wife-revisionist alleged that she was married with opposite party no. 2 14 year ago. The husband was posted as Block Development Officer and now has got retired. He is getting pension of Rs.9,000/-. She is not capable of maintaining herself and she has no source of livelihood.
The only thing which has to be considered in this case was whether there is any source of livelihood with the wife and whether she is living separately from her husband for any reasonable cause. In the evidence, it has come that wife has three children, all three children are married and they all are having shop of general store. The wife herself has stated before the court below that even if her husband wants to bring her back, she would not go with him. She has further stated that for no reason she is living separately from her husband. It has come in the evidence that revisionist-wife has her own house in which she is living.
In view of her own admission, it has been established before the court below that there was no reasonable cause for the wife living separately from her husband. On this ground her application was rejected.
The impugned order appears to be based on evidence on record and is based on the admission of wife that she is not prepared to live with her husband and for no valid and reasonable reason she is living separately from her husband. In such a situation, there was no option left with the learned Judge, Family Court except to reject the application of wife.
In view of above, I find no material irregularity or illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgement.
The revision lacks merit, hence the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.12.2019 RCT/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the wife meets the conditions for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. given her admission of living separately without reasonable cause?
Whether the lower court committed an error of law or jurisdiction in dismissing the wife's maintenance application?
Is the revision petition by the wife maintainable given her admission of fault in separate residence?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Narendri
State of U.P.
Deep Chand
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
