Criminal revision to set aside Family Court order awarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to wife despite prior lump sum divorce settlement held without merit and dismissed.
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. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2789 of 2019
Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Alias Lallu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Syed Wajid Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Nar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Sri Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Prashant Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no.2.
The present criminal revision has been filed to set aside the impugned order dated 25.05.2019 passed in Crl. Misc. Case No.154 of 2017 (Smt. Kanak Gupta Vs. Arvind Kumar), under Section 128 Cr.P.C. passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur, Police Station P.P. Ganj, District Gorakhpur.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist had filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act before the court below which was numbered as Divorce Petition No.491 of 2011. The aforesaid divorce petition was allowed by order dated 17.3.2017 whereby marriage dated 30.04.2006 between revisionist and opposite party no.2 was dissolved and the revisionist was directed to pay lump sum amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the opposite party no.2 as full and final settlement. In the year 2009 the opposite party no.2 had moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the court below seeking maintenance from the revisionist. The revisionist appears in the aforesaid case and filed his objection denying the allegations made in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur by means of order dated 04.11.2015 allowed the application and awarded maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 w.e.f. 01.11.2015.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that since in the divorce decree the revisionist has paid Rs.3 lacs to opposite party no.2 as full and final settlement, therefore, maintenance amount has wrongly been awarded to the opposite party no.2.
To support his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sujata Uday Patil Vs. Uday Madhukar Patil, Appeal (Civil) 5779 of 2006 in which a lump sum amount of Rs.8 lacs was awarded to the wife as maintenance in the divorce petition and proceedings
were initiated by the wife for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and it was held that since the amount of Rs.8 lacs was awarded, therefore, maintenance could not be awarded to the revisionist.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist stating that it is nowhere provided that once the lump sum amount has been awarded in the divorce petition, maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be awarded to the wife, i.e. the opposite party in the present case.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. and after perusing the record, this court is of the view that since there is nothing in the order dated 17.03.2017 to show that wife is not claiming maintenance and she has agreed upon the full and final settlement on the amount of Rs.3 lacs being paid to her by the revisionist, as also in the order dated 04.11.2015 there is discussion of the fact that Rs.3 lacs have been paid and after that maintenance of Rs.7,000/- has been awarded. The opposite party no.2 (wife) is entitled for maintenance. Therefore, there is no illegality and infirmity in the order impugned in this revision.
The revision is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.1.2020 Anand Sri./-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be awarded to a wife despite a lump sum settlement in the divorce decree.
Whether the payment of a lump sum amount in divorce settlement acts as a bar to claiming section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance.
Whether the impugned order awarding monthly maintenance to the wife exhibits any illegality or infirmity.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sujata Uday Patil Vs. Uday Madhukar PatilReferred¶9
Sujata Uday Patil Vs. Uday Madhukar Patil, Appeal (Civil) 5779 of 2006
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Arvind Kumar Alias Lallu
State Of U.P. And Anr.
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
