Dismissed

Munish Chandra @ Munish Chandra Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2024CRLR/328/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed a criminal revision challenging a maintenance order of Rs 6000 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., holding that the trial court's findings of domestic harassment and dowry compulsion justified separate residence and maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Maintained order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. awarding Rs 6000 per month maintenance.

Munish Chandra @ Munish Chandra Tripathi vs State… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:57364

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 328 of 2024 Revisionist :- Munish Chandra @ Munish Chandra Tripathi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Revisionist :- Ambrish Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajai Kumar Shukla,Nisha Devi

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the respondent no.1.

¶7

Shri Ajai Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has sent outstation slip.

¶8

Learned counsel or the revisionist has pressed hard on the application for interim relief as such the Court proceeds to hear both application for interim relief as well as criminal revision on merit.

¶9

Under challenge is order dated 13.03.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge Fourth / Family Court, Sultanpur in Criminal Misc Case / Maintenance Suit No. 293 of 2017 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in re: Vidyawati vs Munish Chandra whereby learned court has awarded a maintenance of Rs 6000 per month under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to respondent no. 2.

¶10

Perusal of said order would indicate that learned court below has formulated five issues. Of the said issues, as per arguments raised by learned counsel for revisionist of the respondent no. 2 deliberately residing separately only issue no. 2 would be relevant i.e.:

¶11

"क्यया आववेददिकया पययार्याप्त कयारण सवे दवपकक्षी सवे अलग रह रहक्षी हह ? अथवया क्यया दवपकक्षी दयारया आववेददिकया कवे भरण पपोषण मम उपवेकया कयाररत ककी गयक्षी हह?"

¶12

In this regard, learned counsel for the revisionist has

¶13

advanced following arguments:

¶14

(a) he has filed a suit under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act which has been decided ex-parte against respondent no. 2 vide judgement and order dated 30.03.2019 in Case No. 79 of 2016 in re: Munish Chandra Tripathi vs Smt Vidya Devi, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the revision, and thus the intention of the revisionist is that he wants respondent no. 2 to reside with him and she is deliberately not residing consequently would not be entitled for maintenance.

¶15

(b) in the statement of father of respondent no. 2 he has stated that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed at his instigation and as such it cannot be said that respondent no. 2 has herself filed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.,

¶16

(c) there is nothing to indicate the reasons as to why the respondent no. 2 is residing separately in as much as the marriage took place in the year 1990 and no reasons emerge as to why the aforesaid application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed in the year 2017 and

¶17

(d) the respondent no. 2 in her statement has indicated that she is interested only in maintenance and does not want to reside with the revisionist.

¶18

No other ground(s) has been urged.

¶19

So far as ground (a) is concerned, perusal of judgement and order dated 30.03.2019 whereby application under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act has been decided indicates that it is an exparte order. No averment has been made in the instant revision as to whether the said order has attained finality or whether an application for recall of said order has been filed by respondent no. 2. In absence thereof ex-parte order passed under Section 9

¶20

of Hindu Marriage Act would not come to rescue of the revisionist. Accordingly, the said ground is rejected.

¶21

So far as ground (b) is concerned that father of respondent no. 2 has indicated that it is on his instigation that application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed, suffice to state that no application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. can be filed at the instigation of a third person in as much as an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to be filed by the claimant. No averment has been made in the revision that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was not signed by respondent no. 2 and consequently once the said application has been filed under signature of respondent no. 2 and she being an adult natural presumption would be that that it is she who has filed the application, may be at the calling of her father with whom she is residing, but by no stretch of imagination it can be said that simply because her father asked her to file the said application there is no application of mind on part of respondent no. 2 while filing the said application. In this view of the matter, the said ground is also rejected.

¶22

So far as the ground that respondent no. 2 is herself residing separately on her own will, suffice to state that this aspect of the matter has been dealt with in detail by learned family court while deciding issue no. 2 as already indicated above. The learned court below has specifically indicated about the harassment which has been occasioned to the respondent no. 2 at the instance of revisionist / husband and his parents whereby respondent no. 2 has indicated of she having been physically beaten up and having been compelled to bring dowry.

¶23

Though learned trial court has also considered that the respondent no. 2 has resided with her husband since the year 1993 till 2009 but during the said period of residence also

¶24

relations with the revisionist i.e her husband were not cordial. On account of that, a panchayat had also taken place in the year 2000. After the panchayat, again the differences cropped between the revisionist and respondent no. 2 which all pertain to respondent no. 2 being compelled to bring a four wheeler vehicle and two lakhs in cash as dowry.

¶25

Learned court below has also considered the statement of father of respondent no. 2 wherein it has been indicated that on 05.12.2009 the revisionist / husband has beaten the respondent no. 2 and turned her out of her house. Learned court has also considered that a lady has initiated proceedings against the revisionist and that the revisionist is also residing, after having entered into second marriage, with the said lady.

¶26

Although, the fact of the revisionist having entered into second marriage is vehemently denied by learned counsel for the revisionist but the fact of the matter remains that from the findings that had been recorded by the learned family court with regard to aforesaid points it is apparent that respondent no. 2 has been forced to live separately from the revisionist which has thereafter prevailed on learned family court to award compensation and maintenance of Rs 6000 per month. Thus, the aforesaid ground as raised by learned counsel for the revisionist is also rejected.

¶27

Thus, none of the grounds as urged by learned counsel for the revisionist can be considered to be valid grounds to interfere with specific findings as recorded by learned court below.

¶28

Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference with impugned order is made out. Accordingly the revision is dismissed.

¶29

Order Date :- 22.8.2024/J. K. Dinkar

¶30

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Munish Chandra @ Munish Chandra Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Munish Chandra @ Munish Chandra Tripathi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. Thru Executive Director Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Labour Deptt. Govt. of U.P. and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Irrigation Deptt.Civil Sectt.and Ors.

Om Diwakar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru Its Secy.to Govt.Revenue Deptt.Lko.andORS.

Uma Kant Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Pragyesh Mishra Vs State of U.P Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Civil Aviation Civil Secrt. Lko.

Dr. Neetika Ambesh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Health and Family Welfare Govt. Lko. and 2 Others