High Court

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the respondent no. 2 is original applicant has also filed an complaint before the court of Magistrate under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act bearing Case No. 1068 of 2021 in the Court of Civil Judge (JD)/FTC/CAW, Fatehpur whereby Rs. 2000/- as interim maintenance has been awarded to the complainant from the date of filing of application dated 10.1.2022. He next submitted that revisionist was always willing to keep his wife with him but respondent no. 2 left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause and shifted to her parental home. The revisionist had filed an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and decree was passed in favour of the revisionist under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act but respondent no. 2 does not want to live with the revisionist even after passing of such decree.

4. He next submitted that this is wrong to say that revisionist is operating a shop of agricultural seeds and pesticides in Koria Market in fact he only earns his livelihood by engaging himself in agricultural activities on his ancestral land. It is wrong to say that his annual income is around 5,00,000/-. He further submitted that the learned court below has awarded Rs. 8000/- from the date of filing application without considering income of the revisionist. The revisionist is only son of his father and he has to depend on his father for his livelihood.

5. He next submitted that the revisionist is also being paying interim maintenance as awarded by learned Magistrate in proceedings under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. Respondent no. 2 has stated in her sworn testimony before the learned Court below that she was kicked by her husband on stomach but in the same statement she has stated that she had not received any medical aid for the injuries received. She has also stated in her examination-in-chief that even if her husband Sandeep keeps her humbly at his home, she is not ready to go with him and continue matrimonial relationship with him. She has also admitted that she has no issue and she never tried to conceive after marriage and before year 2020.

6. He also submitted that revisionist has also filed a case against respondent no. 2 and her family members in the court of Civil Judge/JD with the allegation of committing maar peet with him. The respondent no. 2 has admitted that some negotiation took place between the parties at conciliation and mediation center but she was not interested for compromise and she has decided to live separately. She has even admitted in her evidence that even if she is not tortured by the revisionist but she is not ready to go with him. He lastly submitted that learned court below even has not directed that amount paid by the revisionist in proceedings under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act will liable to be adjusted towards impugned order. With above submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist prayed for setting aside the impugned judgement and order.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that respondent no. 2 has stated in her pleading and evidence that she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty and after her marriage with the revisionist in the year 2018, she was turned out from her matrimonial home after giving beating to her. The revisionist has created a situation in which it is not safe for respondent no. 2 to reside with the revisionist. She has filed a case of dowry, harassment and ill treatment before competent court. The revisionist has admitted in his evidence as D.W. 1 that he possessed of 16-17 Bigha agricultural land and there is also a tractor in the name of grandfather. He cultivates the land by tractor and irrigated the same by tube-well. The amount awarded in the impugned order is just and proper, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.

8. Perusal of the impugned judgement reveals that this is admitted fact that marriage of revisionist was solemnized with respondent no. 2 Dolly Umrao on 15.12.2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals. She was sent off to her matrimonial home after marriage on 9.4.2019 in Gauna ceremony. The respondent no. 2 has alleged in her application for maintenance filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. that even after her arrival at her matrimonial home in Gauna ceremony she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty, harassment and torture at her matrimonial home due to none fulfillment of additional dowry of Rs. 8 lakh and motorcycle. On 25.5.2020, the revisionist and his family members committed maar-peet with the opposite party no. 2 due to non fulfillment of additional dowry. She was thrown out from her matrimonial place after giving beating and snatching her streedhan. They did not take care of her thereafter. The husband of the applicant operates a shop of agricultural seeds and pesticides in Koria Market and besides this his father ones 18-20 Bigha irrigated land. He owns tube-well, tractor and motorcycle and the total income of the revisionist from all source is around 5 lakhs yearly.

9. Learned court below after considering pleadings of the parties, framed six points for determination after appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties, gave a finding that applicant is legally wedded wife of respondent no. 2. She has been residing separately from her husband due to sufficient cause as she has been victim of dowry harassment and maar-peet due to which serious dispute is running between the parties. Applicant is unable to maintain herself. Applicant and opposite party both have filed their affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities before learned court below. The opposite party has stated in his written statement that applicant is qualified upto MA/B.Ed. She is operating coaching center and teaches in a school in Allahabad. Her monthly income is Rs. 30,000/- to 40,000/- per month. The opposite party could not produce any cogent evidence in support of this statement.

10. He has admitted in cross examination as P.W.1 that he had done Ph.D. in Geography subject and he is only son of his parents and heir of movable and immovable property of his parents. His parents owned 16-17 bigha agricultural land. He has inclined to maintain his wife, the applicant. The applicant has stated in her affidavit of assets and liabilities that she has filed a case under section 498A, 323. 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act as well as case under Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act. In case under Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, Rs. 2000/- had been awarded as interim maintenance to the applicant which the opposite party has been paying from time to time and in proceedings under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act also Rs. 1000/- as interim maintenance has been awarded to her. As case under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act has already been decided, therefore, she is not getting any amount right now under section 24 of the Act.

11. Learned court below after considering the evidence on record awarded the amount of maintenance Rs. 8000/- per month which is payable by the opposite party to the applicant from the date of filing 17.3.2021.

12. Considering rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this fact is obvious that opposite party is highly educated person. Revisionist owns and possesses sufficient movable and immovable property of which revisionist is legal heirs. He has admitted in his evidence that he does work of farming in agricultural land which belongs to his father. His wife live with him upto 25.5.2020 and thereafter she used to live at her parental place from time to time. Her father is ex-serviceman. Revisionist taught for some time after marriage and thereafter engaged on agricultural work. He is not aware of income of Dolly and has not filed any prove of her income. I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned court below, the amount awarded in impugned judgement as maintenance is reasonable keeping in view the financial assets of revisionist and his parents. The applicant is also qualified lady. It is not proved that she is earning any amount.

13. However, it is directed in the light of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnish vs. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569 that any amount received by the respondent no. 2 Dolly Umrao, as maintenance under Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act shall be liable to be adjustment towards arrear of maintenance payable by the revisionist towards maintenance order passed in present matter.

14. With above observation, the present criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 4.2.2025/SY

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the respondent no. 2 is original applicant has also filed an complaint before the court of Magistrate under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act bearing Case No. 1068 of 2021 in the Court of Civil Judge (JD)/FTC/CAW, Fatehpur whereby Rs. 2000/- as interim maintenance has been awarded to the complainant from the date of filing of application dated 10.1.2022. He next submitted that revisionist was always willing to keep his wife with him but respondent no. 2 left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause and shifted to her parental home. The revisionist had filed an application under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights and decree was passed in favour of the revisionist under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act but respondent no. 2 does not want to live with the revisionist even after passing of such decree.

4. He next submitted that this is wrong to say that revisionist is operating a shop of agricultural seeds and pesticides in Koria Market in fact he only earns his livelihood by engaging himself in agricultural activities on his ancestral land. It is wrong to say that his annual income is around 5,00,000/-. He further submitted that the learned court below has awarded Rs. 8000/- from the date of filing application without considering income of the revisionist. The revisionist is only son of his father and he has to depend on his father for his livelihood.

5. He next submitted that the revisionist is also being paying interim maintenance as awarded by learned Magistrate in proceedings under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. Respondent no. 2 has stated in her sworn testimony before the learned Court below that she was kicked by her husband on stomach but in the same statement she has stated that she had not received any medical aid for the injuries received. She has also stated in her examination-in-chief that even if her husband Sandeep keeps her humbly at his home, she is not ready to go with him and continue matrimonial relationship with him. She has also admitted that she has no issue and she never tried to conceive after marriage and before year 2020.

6. He also submitted that revisionist has also filed a case against respondent no. 2 and her family members in the court of Civil Judge/JD with the allegation of committing maar peet with him. The respondent no. 2 has admitted that some negotiation took place between the parties at conciliation and mediation center but she was not interested for compromise and she has decided to live separately. She has even admitted in her evidence that even if she is not tortured by the revisionist but she is not ready to go with him. He lastly submitted that learned court below even has not directed that amount paid by the revisionist in proceedings under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act will liable to be adjusted towards impugned order. With above submissions, learned counsel for the revisionist prayed for setting aside the impugned judgement and order.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that respondent no. 2 has stated in her pleading and evidence that she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty and after her marriage with the revisionist in the year 2018, she was turned out from her matrimonial home after giving beating to her. The revisionist has created a situation in which it is not safe for respondent no. 2 to reside with the revisionist. She has filed a case of dowry, harassment and ill treatment before competent court. The revisionist has admitted in his evidence as D.W. 1 that he possessed of 16-17 Bigha agricultural land and there is also a tractor in the name of grandfather. He cultivates the land by tractor and irrigated the same by tube-well. The amount awarded in the impugned order is just and proper, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned order.

8. Perusal of the impugned judgement reveals that this is admitted fact that marriage of revisionist was solemnized with respondent no. 2 Dolly Umrao on 15.12.2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals. She was sent off to her matrimonial home after marriage on 9.4.2019 in Gauna ceremony. The respondent no. 2 has alleged in her application for maintenance filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. that even after her arrival at her matrimonial home in Gauna ceremony she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty, harassment and torture at her matrimonial home due to none fulfillment of additional dowry of Rs. 8 lakh and motorcycle. On 25.5.2020, the revisionist and his family members committed maar-peet with the opposite party no. 2 due to non fulfillment of additional dowry. She was thrown out from her matrimonial place after giving beating and snatching her streedhan. They did not take care of her thereafter. The husband of the applicant operates a shop of agricultural seeds and pesticides in Koria Market and besides this his father ones 18-20 Bigha irrigated land. He owns tube-well, tractor and motorcycle and the total income of the revisionist from all source is around 5 lakhs yearly.

9. Learned court below after considering pleadings of the parties, framed six points for determination after appreciating the evidence adduced by both the parties, gave a finding that applicant is legally wedded wife of respondent no. 2. She has been residing separately from her husband due to sufficient cause as she has been victim of dowry harassment and maar-peet due to which serious dispute is running between the parties. Applicant is unable to maintain herself. Applicant and opposite party both have filed their affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities before learned court below. The opposite party has stated in his written statement that applicant is qualified upto MA/B.Ed. She is operating coaching center and teaches in a school in Allahabad. Her monthly income is Rs. 30,000/- to 40,000/- per month. The opposite party could not produce any cogent evidence in support of this statement.

10. He has admitted in cross examination as P.W.1 that he had done Ph.D. in Geography subject and he is only son of his parents and heir of movable and immovable property of his parents. His parents owned 16-17 bigha agricultural land. He has inclined to maintain his wife, the applicant. The applicant has stated in her affidavit of assets and liabilities that she has filed a case under section 498A, 323. 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act as well as case under Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act. In case under Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, Rs. 2000/- had been awarded as interim maintenance to the applicant which the opposite party has been paying from time to time and in proceedings under section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act also Rs. 1000/- as interim maintenance has been awarded to her. As case under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act has already been decided, therefore, she is not getting any amount right now under section 24 of the Act.

11. Learned court below after considering the evidence on record awarded the amount of maintenance Rs. 8000/- per month which is payable by the opposite party to the applicant from the date of filing 17.3.2021.

12. Considering rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this fact is obvious that opposite party is highly educated person. Revisionist owns and possesses sufficient movable and immovable property of which revisionist is legal heirs. He has admitted in his evidence that he does work of farming in agricultural land which belongs to his father. His wife live with him upto 25.5.2020 and thereafter she used to live at her parental place from time to time. Her father is ex-serviceman. Revisionist taught for some time after marriage and thereafter engaged on agricultural work. He is not aware of income of Dolly and has not filed any prove of her income. I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned court below, the amount awarded in impugned judgement as maintenance is reasonable keeping in view the financial assets of revisionist and his parents. The applicant is also qualified lady. It is not proved that she is earning any amount.

13. However, it is directed in the light of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnish vs. Neha, AIR 2021 SC 569 that any amount received by the respondent no. 2 Dolly Umrao, as maintenance under Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act shall be liable to be adjustment towards arrear of maintenance payable by the revisionist towards maintenance order passed in present matter.

14. With above observation, the present criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 4.2.2025/SY