Neha Singh v. Vikash Singh), under Section

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Umesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Devesh Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra in Misc. Case No. 73 of 2023 (Neha Singh Vs. Vikash Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no. 2 is wife of revisionist and living separate from him with opposite party nos. 3 & 4 who are minor children of the revisionist. The marriage was performed in the year 2017. The revisionist never misbehaved the opposite party no. 2 but she without any sufficient cause left his home on 30.01.2022 and went to her maika where she is living with children. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance with an application for interim maintenance against the revisionist which was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 21.03.2024 fixing the amount of interim maintenance Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of wife/opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of two children for each, total Rs. 20,000/- per month. Further submitted that there is a business in the name of opposite party no. 2/ the wife i.e. Hanumant Electronic and Furniture under her proprietorship which is registered under GST which shows that wife operates the business and is able to maintain herself but this was not considered by the learned trial court while passing the order and fixing the amount of interim maintenance, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and to reduce the amount. Learned counsel for the opposite parties as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 and 4 are minor children of the revisionist. Admittedly, marriage was performed in the year 2017 and out of wedlock two children were born. The revisionist ill treated with her/opposite party no. 2 in regard to demand of dowry and also used to beat her. On 30.01.2022 in the night he insulted her and beat inflicting injuries on the person regarding which she went to her maika and lodged an F.I.R. as Crime No. 03 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. She was medically examined in which 9 injuries were found on her person showing cruelty on the part of the revisionist and other members of his family and this was the reason she is living in her maika. The revisionist is businessman and runs business in the name of Hanumant Electronic and Furniture in Bhabhua, Bihar, Baidhan, Madhya Pradesh and Robertsganj, Uttar Pradesh as admitted by him in his objection though this business was registered in the name of opposite party no. 2 and income tax returns were also filed on her behalf as being wife. The income tax returns were also filed by her but since she is living in her maika she has no any such ITRs. The business was owned by the revisionist and he makes handsome income. The revisionist has mentioned in his objection about opposite party no. 2 to earn Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month from the business as aforesaid on the basis of GSTIN related to Hanumant Electronic and Furniture. In this way, the learned trial court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the papers regarding the business operated by the revisionist in the name of his wife/opposite party no. 2 fixed the amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 5000/- in favour of minor children for each that cannot be said to be more than sufficient. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 was ill treated by the revisionist and also she was beaten by the revisionist on 30.01.2022 in the night. During the medical examination 9 injuries were found on her person showing cruelty on the part of revisionist regarding which F.I.R. was also lodged. Since then she is living in her maika which shows sufficient cause to live separate from the husband in her maika. Two minor children are also living with her and are studying in Dyanamic Kids Play School. The revisionist himself has admitted in his objection that the business is in the name of opposite party no. 2 by which she makes income about Rs. 50,000/ to 60,000/- per month and this business is operated in three states i.e. Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. This admission of the revisionist shows that business is also being operated by him though it is in the name of opposite party no. 2. Income returns have also been filed by the opposite party no. 2 showing the income from the business. Since she is living in her maika, therefore, she cannot be said that she is still running business and making income to maintain her, therefore, the revisionist is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor children, those are living separate from him with sufficient cause. The amount of interim maintenance fixed by the learned trial court Rs. 10,000/- per month in faovur of wife and Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of each minor child cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court dated 21.03.2024, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court as a result this revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed at the admission stage. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Anurag Singh

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Umesh Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Devesh Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist with prayer to set aside the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonbhadra in Misc. Case No. 73 of 2023 (Neha Singh Vs. Vikash Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that in this case opposite party no. 2 is wife of revisionist and living separate from him with opposite party nos. 3 & 4 who are minor children of the revisionist. The marriage was performed in the year 2017. The revisionist never misbehaved the opposite party no. 2 but she without any sufficient cause left his home on 30.01.2022 and went to her maika where she is living with children. She filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance with an application for interim maintenance against the revisionist which was decided by the learned trial court vide order dated 21.03.2024 fixing the amount of interim maintenance Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of wife/opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of two children for each, total Rs. 20,000/- per month. Further submitted that there is a business in the name of opposite party no. 2/ the wife i.e. Hanumant Electronic and Furniture under her proprietorship which is registered under GST which shows that wife operates the business and is able to maintain herself but this was not considered by the learned trial court while passing the order and fixing the amount of interim maintenance, therefore, request to set aside the order passed by learned trial court and to reduce the amount. Learned counsel for the opposite parties as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case, the opposite party no. 2 is wife and opposite party no. 3 and 4 are minor children of the revisionist. Admittedly, marriage was performed in the year 2017 and out of wedlock two children were born. The revisionist ill treated with her/opposite party no. 2 in regard to demand of dowry and also used to beat her. On 30.01.2022 in the night he insulted her and beat inflicting injuries on the person regarding which she went to her maika and lodged an F.I.R. as Crime No. 03 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. She was medically examined in which 9 injuries were found on her person showing cruelty on the part of the revisionist and other members of his family and this was the reason she is living in her maika. The revisionist is businessman and runs business in the name of Hanumant Electronic and Furniture in Bhabhua, Bihar, Baidhan, Madhya Pradesh and Robertsganj, Uttar Pradesh as admitted by him in his objection though this business was registered in the name of opposite party no. 2 and income tax returns were also filed on her behalf as being wife. The income tax returns were also filed by her but since she is living in her maika she has no any such ITRs. The business was owned by the revisionist and he makes handsome income. The revisionist has mentioned in his objection about opposite party no. 2 to earn Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per month from the business as aforesaid on the basis of GSTIN related to Hanumant Electronic and Furniture. In this way, the learned trial court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the papers regarding the business operated by the revisionist in the name of his wife/opposite party no. 2 fixed the amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of wife and Rs. 5000/- in favour of minor children for each that cannot be said to be more than sufficient. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record and order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 was ill treated by the revisionist and also she was beaten by the revisionist on 30.01.2022 in the night. During the medical examination 9 injuries were found on her person showing cruelty on the part of revisionist regarding which F.I.R. was also lodged. Since then she is living in her maika which shows sufficient cause to live separate from the husband in her maika. Two minor children are also living with her and are studying in Dyanamic Kids Play School. The revisionist himself has admitted in his objection that the business is in the name of opposite party no. 2 by which she makes income about Rs. 50,000/ to 60,000/- per month and this business is operated in three states i.e. Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. This admission of the revisionist shows that business is also being operated by him though it is in the name of opposite party no. 2. Income returns have also been filed by the opposite party no. 2 showing the income from the business. Since she is living in her maika, therefore, she cannot be said that she is still running business and making income to maintain her, therefore, the revisionist is under legal obligation to maintain his wife and minor children, those are living separate from him with sufficient cause. The amount of interim maintenance fixed by the learned trial court Rs. 10,000/- per month in faovur of wife and Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of each minor child cannot be said to be excessive or more than sufficient. In this way, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by learned trial court dated 21.03.2024, therefore, it does not warrant interference by this Court as a result this revision being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed at the admission stage. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 Anurag Singh