Devi Prasad v. State of Uttarkahand & Ors.

case was titled as Smt. Godabmari Devi and another Vs. Devi Prasad u/s 125 Cr.P.C. In the said judgment, the learned Magistrate ordered the petitioner Devi Prasad (husband) to pay the maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month for his wife Godabmari Devi and son Master Suraj each since 2.11.2000 to

2.11.2003, whereas, the amount of maintenance, since

3.11.2003 onwards, was ordered to be paid at the monthly rate of Rs.2,000/- each, i.e. Rs.4,000/- per month, for both. This judgment was affirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri in Criminal Revision No.9 of 2007, vide order dated 26.4.2007. Petitioner, instead of paying a single penny, has filed this petition and got the impugned order stayed on 5.10.2009 by this Court. In brief, the facts are that petitioner Devi prasad was wedded with Godabmari Devi on 17/18.5.95 as per Hindu rituals and a son Master Suraj was born out of the said 2 wedlock. After a couple of years, having passed blissfully, the differences cropped up and the matrimonial life could not be lead amicably, so Smt. Godabmari Devi resided in segregation and filed a miscellaneous petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. which was disallowed on 26.3.2004 by the order of Judicial Magistrate, New Tehri. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that she was living in segregation voluntarily and leading a life of adultery too. Smt. Godabmari Devi filed a revision no.16 of 2004, assailing the order of the Magistrate dated 26.3.2004. The same was adjudicated by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal on 6.8.2004, whereby the said revision was allowed and the order of Magistrate 26.3.2004 was set aside, with the directions to decide the matter afresh, by appreciating the evidence of both the parties in the light of observations made in the body of judgment. This way, the matter was again adjudicated by Judicial Magistrate, Tehri on 31.1.2006. The learned Magistrate, this time, awarded the maintenance to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month to son Master Suraj w.e.f. 2.11.2000, while the maintenance was refused to Smt. Godabmari Devi. Assailing the same judgment and order dated 31.1.2006, Smt. Godabmari Devi filed a criminal revision no.11 of 2006, whereas, the petitioner Devi Prasad also filed the criminal revision no.4 of 2006. Both these revisions were adjudicated by the Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal vide his common judgment dated 26.9.2006 and the learned Judge, vide an elaborate judgment, allowed both the revisions and set aside the order dated 31.1.2006, and directed the lower court to decide the matter afresh by appreciating the evidence of both the parties in the light of observations made in the body of judgment. 3 So, this time, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, after hearing the parties, again adjudicated the matter vide his order dated 7.2.2007, which is impugned in this petition. The said order of learned Magistrate was affirmed in revision no.9 of 2007 vide judgment and order dated 26.4.2007, which too is impugned in this petition. During the course of arguments, it has been apprised by learned counsel appearing for Smt. Godabmari Devi that the petitioner also filed a petition u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was allowed on 3.6.2009, whereagainst she filed a First Appeal No.101 of 2009 and the same was adjudicated by this Court on 16.9.2010, granting the permanent alimony of Rs.5.00 lacs, for confirming the decree of divorce. This judgment was challenged by Devi Prasad before Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court, where the Special Leave Petition was failed. In spite of that, nothing has been paid by Devi Prasad, either towards maintenance or for the amount of permanent alimony. Having heard the learned counsel of both the parties, this Court feels that the petitioner, by way of filing the instant petition, has grossly abused the process of the court. Even, it is the second revision under the garb of Section 482 Cr.P.C., which is not permissible at all as per the provisions of Section 397(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner has repeatedly challenged the different orders, obviously for the reason that his monetary position is quite strong, inasmuch as, he is a Pharmacist, i.e. a government servant. As such, his pecuniary status happened to be quite strong against his starving wife Godabmari Devi, which enabled him to approach even the Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court, without making the payment of a single penny till date and that too, at the cost of utter defiance of the orders of this Court and that of Hon(cid:146)ble Apex Court. Otherwise also, on merits, the main contention of the petitioner is that Smt. Godabmari Devi was living in adultery, 4 while the only witness to this fact was one Sri Indramani. The evidence of this witness is so weak, as to make his entire testimony totally unbelievable, as has been discussed by learned Judicial Magistrate in his judgment dated 7.2.2007 and affirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal vide judgment and order dated 26.4.2007. This Court is in full agreement with the view adopted by the courts below in their impugned orders. In view of what has been discussed above, this petition is totally meritless, which is liable to be dismissed. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with a special cost of Rs.10,000/- against the petitioner Devi Prasad. This amount will be recovered through the Treasury Officer of the District where the petitioner is posted from his salary and will be paid to Smt. Godabmari Devi. Interim order dated

5.10.2009 passed by this Court is hereby vacated. Rajeev Dang (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) December 27, 2011