High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by a husband challenging a maintenance order under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act. The court upheld the lower court's decision to grant maintenance for cruelty and dowry demands.
The criminal revision was 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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30293
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 362 of 2024
Revisionist :- Munir
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Amit Tewari,Vimal Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the respondent State.
Notices to respondent nos.2 are dispensed with.
The present criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 9.1.2024 in criminal misc. case no.10 of 2020 passed on application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. district Sitapur in Criminal Misc. Case No.10 of 2020 passed on application under Section 125 Cr.p.C. District Lucknow, Smt. Shabnam Bano vs. Munir.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that earlier also he has tried to bring respondent no.2 back to her matrimonial home, however she was not willing to go and reside with him. On this limited ground the revision has been rejected.
Perused the record.
Perusal of the record shows that issue no.2 was framed by the learned court below as to whether respondent no.2 is residing away from the revisionist for justifiable reasons. Learned court below has decided the issue no.2 after considering the evidence led by both the parties and arrived at a conclusion that respondent no.2 has been subjected to cruelty due to demand of dowry and have been ousted by the revisionist and has not been paid any maintenance, neither her whereabouts has been taken by the revisionist and thus has passed the impugned order. Relevant part of the judgment 9.1.2024 is extracted below:-
"14. इसबबनददककसमबनधममपपरररननककबवदपनअरधवकपककओरसकयहतकरबदयपगयपबक शपदनममपपरररननककमपतपबपतपनकअपननहहरसयतककअनदसपरदपनदहकजबदयपरप, बकनतदबतपपकन वउसककपररवपरवपलकउकदपनदहकजसकसनतदषनहहरकतरपअबतररकदहकजककमपपगकरतकरक, तरपउककपरणपपरररननककशपरनररकवमपनरसकरपसकपतपबडतकरतकरक।पपरररननगररवतन हहयनतरपबवपकनवउसककपररवपरवपलकपपरररननककपतपबडतकरसपरपकपमकरवपतकरक, रजससक पपरररननकमजकरहकगयन।तबपपरररननककदवपककबहपनकमपयककरकजबदयप, पपरररननककबपतपनक उसकपसपरपइलपजकरपयप।पपरररनननकएकलडककककजनमबदयप, • रजसककममतयदजनमककसपढक चपरमपहबपदहकगयन।पपरररननरपयककममहनरहकरपरकशपननसकजनवनगदजपररहनहह। 15. बवपकनककबवदपनअरधववतपककओरसकयहतकरबदयपगयपहहबकबवपकननककरनदहकजकक मपपगनहहकक, वहमजददरवयबकहहतरपअरधकतमदकहजपररपयककमपतपहह।बवपकनवपबदननकक अपनकपपसरखनपचपहतपहह।उकमदकदमपगलततथययपरआधपररतयकरजतबकयपगयपहह। वपबदननककबपतपचपलपकबकसमककवयबकहह, जकबकवपबदननककशपदनकहहअनयतकरदकनप चपहतकहह।
तरपपबतपरनकपममकरनबकयपबकमदननरकझनहह, यहसपकननहहजपनतप।मदननर, ककबपतपइस सपकनककगवपहनबदलपनकककरलएनयपयपलयलपयकहह।मदननरककबपतपनकगवपहनदकनकककसमबनधमम कदछनहहबतपयपहह।मदननरककशपदनहहयनहहयपनहहइससमबनधममइससपकनककककईजपनकपरन नहहहह।मदननरनयपयपलयममशबनमककलकजपनकककरलएरखसतनकपदपवपबकयपहह, रजसकक समबनधममइससपकनककककईजपनकपरननहहहह।
After considering the evidence led by the parties and also considering the income of the revisionist the learned court below has directed the revisionist to pay sum of Rs.1500/- per month from the date of filing of the application and Rs.3,000/- per month from the date of order dated 9.1.2024. I find no illegality in the order impugned.
Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.4.2024
Madhu
Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act upholding maintenance liability is legally flawed.
Whether the revisionist has shown any merit in challenging the maintenance decree.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
