Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55210

Court No. - 79

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3323 of 2024

Revisionist :- Gautam Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pankaj Bharti Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.5.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Shamli at Kairana in Case No. 146 of 2022 (Smt. Reetu Versus Gautam), Section 125 CrPC, whereby revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 8000/- as maintenance to the applicant from the date of filing of application. i. e. 2.6.2022.

¶7

Notice was issued to respondent No.2 Smt. Reetu vide order dated 06.02.2025 passed by this Court and same was reportedly served upon her as per office report dated 17.03.2025. None appeared on her behalf in present revision to represent her.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that it is an admitted fact that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the respondent no. 2 on 7.3.2021 and a child was born out of their wedlock who subsequently died. Revisionist remained unemployed. The family owns twelve bighas ancestral land, of which all the five brothers of his father are co-sharers. Revisionist is not the recorded tenure holder. The trial court has awarded exorbitant amount of money as maintenance to the applicant / wife without assessing the income of the revisionist, who is not able to pay this amount to respondent no. 2 for want of income.

¶10

He next submits that respondent no. 2 has wrongly shown name of her father as Malkhan Singh, whereas name of her father is Azmer Singh and she has admitted this fact before the trial court also but has not moved any application to correct the name of her father in maintenance petition and for

¶11

that reason, the parentage of respondent no. 2 has wrongly been shown in the impugned judgement and order. He next submits that respondent no. 2 has been residing separately from her husband without sufficient cause and therefore, she is not entitled to any maintenance as per Section 125 (4) Cr.PC. The court below has not considered this fact in right perspective.

¶12

In support of above contention, learned counsel for revisionist has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of the applicant in her crossexamination, wherein she has stated that the marriage of the revisionist with opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 7.3.2021 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Opposite party no. 2 is not bearing any issue from the marriage. She wants to live with her husband but on the condition that he will have to do whatever she desires. She has stated herself that she is not willing to live with the family of her husband. She is B. A. pass out, whereas her husband is Intermediate passed. It is true that her husband filed a case for Vidai (under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act) wherein she had filed a written statement, stating therein, that she has been residing separately from her husband and with her father on being harassed by her in-laws. She is not aware whether her husband possesses any land or not.

¶13

It is true that name of her father has wrongly been mentioned in her petition for maintenance. She has filed two cases against her husband. She has not filed any suit for divorce. An effort was made to arrive at some settlement between the parties but the same could not accomplished. Her parents are bearing the cost of her maintenance.

¶14

In view of the above, learned counsel for revisionist submitted that the above statement itself suggests that the respondent no. 2 is residing separately from her husband at her own will and choice and allegations of demand of dowry and matrimonial cruelty levelled against her husband and in-laws, are false and have been made only to develop a case for maintenance. He has lastly submitted that revisionist does not own aadhat but he works as a labourer in aadhat of his brother.

¶15

2

¶16

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that the aforesaid statement of the applicant / respondent no. 2 should be read together with her statement in chief as PW 1 before the trial court, wherein, she has stated that opposite party and his family members were demanding Rs. 20,00,000/- in cash as additional dowry and they were not satisfied with dowry given at the time of the marriage. She was subjected to matrimonial cruelty on account of nonfulfillment of demand of dowry and ultimately they engaged in marpeet, in which she suffered serious injuries and she informed her parents, on which, her parents came and tried to make her in-laws aware but ultimately she was turned out from her matrimonial home in wearing apparel and since then, she is residing at her parental place. She runs a wholesale vegetable shop. He earns Rs. 60,000/- per month.

¶17

It appears from correspondence of CJM, Shamli dated 07.03.2025 to Deputy Registrar of this court that true name of father of respondent No.2 is Ajmer Singh and same has wrongly been mentioned as Malkhan Singh on record. Surprisingly, the applicant has also shown her parentage as Malkhan Singh in her statement as PW-1 before the court below. The original applicant Smt. Reetu has alleged in her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that marriage of the applicant with opposite party Gautam was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals, one year prior to filing of application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 02.06.2022. She came to her matrimonial home after marriage and started fulfilling her matrimonial obligations with utmost dedication. Her parents had also spent abundantly to keep the opposite party and his family satisfied. Even, then opposite party and his family members started demanding additional dowry after some time of marriage and on 08.05.2022, they reiterated their demand of dowry and assaulted at around 05:00 AM, in which he got injured and her father visited her on being informed about the incident and took her to her parental place. She lodged an FIR in this regard vide Case Crime No.189 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act., and she has been

¶18

3

¶19

living with her parents since then. Her husband did not take care of the applicant and paid no maintenance to her.

¶20

The applicant was examined as PW-1 before the Court below on 20.11.2023, wherein she stated that she had married with Gautam on 07.03.2021. She was turned out from her matrimonial home after incident dated 08.05.2022, in which she was badly beaten by her husband and inlaws. Her husband operated a whole sale of vegetable (Aadhat) and earns around Rs.60,000/- per month. She is not skilled in any task like stitching, weaving, or embroidery. She stated that she should be awarded Rs.30,000/per month as maintenance. In cross-examination she stated that she is B.A. pass out, she is not willing to live with the family members of husband, her husband is intermediate pass out. This is true that that her husband has filed a Suit for Vidai, in which she has filed her written statement. She lives separately due to being harassed by her in-laws, her husband is not employed in any any Government Job. She does nothing, she is not running any beauty parlour at Jhinjhana, she does not give tuition to children. Her father’s named is Ajmer Singh. She has not filed any suit for divorce. Some talks for compromise were under way, but no settlement could be reached, her expenses are borne by her parents. Her husband, parents-in-law Jeth, Jethani and Nanad were engaged in marpeet.

¶21

Revisionist heard as DW-1 who stated in his evidence that he was married with the applicant on 07.05.2022, a child was born out of their wedlock, but he died after four days. Neither he nor any of his family members were ever made demand of dowry to his wife, she was never harassed. He is unemployed, he want to keep his wife with honour, she is B.A. pass out and runs beatuty parlour, she also gaves tuituon to children at her place. He wants to live with his wife, his ancestral property consists of 12-13 Bigha agricultural land spread amongst his father and four brothers. His house situates at Shamli, in which two shops are operated, his brother sits in sweet shop and he works as a helper in a shop and sits in the shop

¶22

4

¶23

now and then. He is not having any evidence in support of the fact that his wife works in a beauty parlour and gives tuition.

¶24

Learned court below has recorded a finding that after framing three points of determination on the basis of pleadings of the parties which is based on evidence adduced by the parties at the hearing of the case.

¶25

Learned court below has recorded a finding that the applicant is married with of opposite party and she is entitled to seek maintenance from him. From perusal of evidence on record, it is evident that applicant was subjected to matrimonial cruelty and torture from the side of opposite party and for that reason she is not living with him. Therefore, the applicant is living separately from opposite party due to just and sufficient reasons. She is not able to maintain her due to lack of independent earning, although opposite party has stated that he does no work, but from his evidence it is obvious his family buy 13 bigha land, two shops and a personal house. It is also proved that opposite party runs a business of vegetables and fruits from which there is every possibility that he earns Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- per month.

¶26

Considering all the background facts social, economic and financial needs of the applicant has awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant which is payable by the opposite party/revisionist from the date of application dated 02.06.2022. Although the applicant has denied this fact that he himself runs shop of the vegetables and has stated in his evidence that shop is run by his brother and he sits in the shop casually and helps his brother in a portion of the shop. Yet he admitted that his family owns 10-12 Bigha agricultural land, two shops and one house. Thus taking into consideration the family background of the applicant and his family, the amount of maintenance awarded in the impugned judgment and order cannot be termed as exorbitant and excessive. A person is under obligation to provide maintenance to his wife who resides separately from him due to matrimonial discord and for sufficient reasons and is unable to maintain herself.

¶27

5

¶28

However, some reduction in amount payable from date of order to date of judgment is required due fact that the estimated income of the revisionist is not based on any specified document. Keeping in view the fact that the court below has estimated the income of the revisionist on the basis of guess work, but in a reasonable manner. However, this fact can also not be lost sight that he has concealed his income in his evidence as well as in pleadings, perhaps to avoid any liability to pay maintenance to his wife.

¶29

Therefore operative order is modified to the extent that the revisionist will pay Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to the applicant from the date of filing of application dated 02.06.2022 to date of judgment i.e. 14.05.2024 and thereafter he will pay and keep on paying to respondent No.2 (original applicant) a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance as directed in the impugned order. The other terms and conditions imposed in the impugned are not interfered with.

¶30

The revision stands partly allowed , accordingly.

¶31

Order Date :- 18.3.2025

¶32

HR/Ashish/-

¶33

6

¶34

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gautam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gautam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases