Dismissed

Pushpa Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2023CRLR/2196/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging an order rejecting a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance application. The lower court held the wife earned sufficient income. While noting an out-of-court settlement and the wife's willingness to drop the petition, the court found no merit and no jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; impugned order affirmed; interim order, if any, vacated.

Pushpa Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2196 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Pushpa Devi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Deepak Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Singh,Syed Wajid Ali

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶5

Case called out. Sri Deepak Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 are present.

¶6

Heard on revision finally at the prayer of both the parties on merits and perused the record.

¶7

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 13.10.2021 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Kaushambi in Case No. 235 of 2018 (Smt. Pushpa Devi Vs. Kamal @ Manish Jaishwal), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi whereby the application of the revisionist was rejected on the ground that she earns monthly Rs.5,000/-6,000/-. Aggrieved by this order revisionist filed the present revision with the prayer to allow this revision and quash the order dated 13.10.2021.

¶8

The ground for revision are that the impugned order is illegal, improper which is not sustainable in the eye of law. The impugned order has been passed against the facts, evidence and other material available on record. The learned trial court passed without applying judicial mind and it ignored the responsibility of the revisionist towards his family members.

¶9

Learned counsel for both the parties admitted that till date revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party no. 2 namely, Kamal @ Manish Jaiswal. In the course of time the opposite party was not satisfied with the dowry given to husband in the marriage. He demanded additional dowry in the form of an apache motorcycle and Rs.2,000,00/- in cash. When revisionist and her parent/ guardian could not oblige his demand, he started beating

¶10

her and committed cruelty upon her. To resolve the dispute local panchayats were also convened, but no solution could be found. So the revisionist left her matrimonial house, as there was serious threat to her life there. Since, then she is living with her father and brother. Opposite party no. 2 stated that if she would not fetch additional dowry demand, he would not keep her as wife, in the matrimonial home. Thus, she is residing separately for sufficient cause.

¶11

Although, opposite party denied the allegations made against him, but he accepted that revisionist is still his legally wedded wife and learned court below has rightly concluded on the basis of Mitanjali Mohanty vs Farnandes Mohanty And Anr. 1992 CRLJ 4046 that husband is under socio-legal obligation to maintain his wife. Opposite party is an able bodied person who is deemed to earn sufficient amount to fulfill the needs of her wife. Learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence about the economic earnings and socio-economic status of the parties.

¶12

Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 could not point out any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgement and order. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the revisionist stated that she would not prosecute her application, including the present revision, because both the parties have arrived at amicable settlement of dispute in this case out of court and resultantly she does not want to prosecute the present revision.

¶13

The revisionist could not pointed out any illegality, irregularity or perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgement and order. Moreover, both the parties do not want to prosecute the revision any more. Thus, the revision is devoid of merits. The impugned order need not interference. Resultantly, liable to be dismissed.

¶14

Revision is dismissed. Impugned judgement and order is affirmed. Interim order, if any, stand vacated.

¶15

Let a copy of the judgement be sent to the trial court for necessary action.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.2.2023 Israr

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pushpa Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Devi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Savitri Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Bachan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Satya Prakash Maurya Vs State of U.P through Secretary Home and 2 Others

Arvind Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Aneeta Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Nitin Dhuriya @ Dau Vs State of U.P.