High Court · 2025

2. Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned AGA for the State and Sri Saif Ali Khan, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

3. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Maintenance (Old) No.422 of 2019, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by which the application for maintenance was allowed and present revisionist was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from date of filing of application u/s 125 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is a pensioner, aged bout 72 years and now he has become bed ridden. He retired from the post of Welder from Electricity Department in 2014. He was never posted as Junior Engineer. Opposite party no.2, Smt. Pooja Kaushik was married with Rakesh Kaushik, who died in the year, 2009 under suspicious circumstances. She is habitual of blackmailing the persons by making allegation that she is his wife. She has amassed enormous property by showing herself as wife of several persons, subsequently making demand of maintenance from them. Revisionist has retired in the year 2014 and is dependent on pension. His son lives in Jaipur. The marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with one Ganga son of Om Prakash in the year 1991, he died in 1994 and thereafter, she got married with Rakesh Kaushik in the year 1994. She got the property of Rakesh Kaushik after his death. She purchased two properties and subsequently sold them to other persons. She has recently executed a sale deed on 08.09.2022 of a house having built area 84.67 Sq. Meter, situated at Milan Vihar, Majholi, District Moradabad, which she had purchased in the year 2014. She has shown herself as wife of Rakesh Kaushik in the sale deed. Had she been living as wedded wife of the revisionist, there was no occasion for her to show herself as wife of Rakesh Kaushik, who died in the year 2009 and she claimed herself as wife of Arvind Kaushik. He has next submitted that opposite party no.2 executed a sale deed in the year 2007 in favour of Smt. Sarla Chaudhary wife of Mahipal Singh of a residential house wherein also she has shown herself as wife of Rakesh Kaushik. In another sale deed dated 20.07.2015, executed by opposite party no.2 in favour of Smt. Shashi also, she has shown herself as wife of Rakesh Kaushik and even present revisionist is marginal witness therein. Had the revisionist been husband of opposite party no.2 he would not have appeared as a witness in said sale deed wherein she has shown herself as wife of earlier deceased husband. He lastly submitted that opposite party no.2 is not legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She is not entitled to any maintenance, she claims herself wrongly as his wife. Learned court below has awarded maintenance in the impugned order without considering the plea taken by the revisionist in proper perspective. The impugned order is vitiated by law and deserves to be set aside. Opposite party no.2 is blackmailing and trying to extort money from the revisionist only due to the fact that she has been acquainted with the revisionist and both were on personal terms. No question of demand of dowry by the revisionist arises when he is not married with respondent no.2.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that there is ample evidence oral as well as documentary in the trial court record, which reveals that the marriage of revisionist with opposite party no.2 had taken place and she is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. Learned court below has considered this issue in the impugned judgment in elaborate manner and after due consideration of the evidence adduced by parties has given finding that the applicant, Pooja Kaushik is the wife of opposite party no.2, Arun Kumar. This finding of fact recorded by the trial court is based on evidence on record, is not to be disturbed in present criminal revision as this is trite law that finding of facts are not disturbed in revision unless these are perverse and not supported by legal evidence.

6. Learned court below has framed four points of determination on the basis of pleadings of the parties and after considering evidence adduced by the parties and discussing the evidence appearing on record in elaborate manner that in present case for the purposes of application for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. this fact is proved that applicant Pooja Kausik is wife of opposite party Arun Kumar. Learned court below has also given a finding that applicant is an intermediate passed woman who is not having independent source of earning. She also bears responsibility to maintain the child born from her previous husband. The opposite party is possessed of sufficient means to maintain his wife but he neglected to maintain her and failed to discharge matrimonial obligations.

7. Opposite party has admitted that he receives Rs.40,000/- as pension. He has not clarified his liabilities, therefore, applicant is entitled to receive maintenance from her husband according to his educational, economic and social documents upto the standard in which she was accustomed to live with her husband at his place.

8. Learned court below has awarded Rs.10,000/- as maintenance to the applicant from the date of filing application and arrears is directed to be paid in two monthly installments. The above findings of fact recorded by family court are based on evidence on record and need not be disturbed in present revision.

9. However keeping in view the fact that the revisionist is a pensioner and a huge sum on money is liable to be paid towards arrears of maintenance. The amount of maintenance Rs.10,000/- which is payable from the date of filing application to date of judgement is liable to be reduced to some extent in the interest of justice, therefore, it is directed that the revisionist will pay Rs.8,000/- per month to the applicant from the date of filing of application i.e. 31.7.2019 to date of judgement dated 02.12.2023 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month as awarded in the impugned judgement and order.

10. The arrears of maintenance from 31.07.2019 to date of judgement as modified by this order will be payable in five monthly installments and first installment will be payable from 21.04.2025. The remaining installment will be payable in succeeding months. Apart from that revisionist shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as awarded in the impugned judgement on regular basis from the date of impugned judgement onwards.

11. The revision is partly allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Atul/SY ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned AGA for the State and Sri Saif Ali Khan, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

3. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.12.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Maintenance (Old) No.422 of 2019, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by which the application for maintenance was allowed and present revisionist was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from date of filing of application u/s 125 Cr.P.C.

4. Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is a pensioner, aged bout 72 years and now he has become bed ridden. He retired from the post of Welder from Electricity Department in 2014. He was never posted as Junior Engineer. Opposite party no.2, Smt. Pooja Kaushik was married with Rakesh Kaushik, who died in the year, 2009 under suspicious circumstances. She is habitual of blackmailing the persons by making allegation that she is his wife. She has amassed enormous property by showing herself as wife of several persons, subsequently making demand of maintenance from them. Revisionist has retired in the year 2014 and is dependent on pension. His son lives in Jaipur. The marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with one Ganga son of Om Prakash in the year 1991, he died in 1994 and thereafter, she got married with Rakesh Kaushik in the year 1994. She got the property of Rakesh Kaushik after his death. She purchased two properties and subsequently sold them to other persons. She has recently executed a sale deed on 08.09.2022 of a house having built area 84.67 Sq. Meter, situated at Milan Vihar, Majholi, District Moradabad, which she had purchased in the year 2014. She has shown herself as wife of Rakesh Kaushik in the sale deed. Had she been living as wedded wife of the revisionist, there was no occasion for her to show herself as wife of Rakesh Kaushik, who died in the year 2009 and she claimed herself as wife of Arvind Kaushik. He has next submitted that opposite party no.2 executed a sale deed in the year 2007 in favour of Smt. Sarla Chaudhary wife of Mahipal Singh of a residential house wherein also she has shown herself as wife of Rakesh Kaushik. In another sale deed dated 20.07.2015, executed by opposite party no.2 in favour of Smt. Shashi also, she has shown herself as wife of Rakesh Kaushik and even present revisionist is marginal witness therein. Had the revisionist been husband of opposite party no.2 he would not have appeared as a witness in said sale deed wherein she has shown herself as wife of earlier deceased husband. He lastly submitted that opposite party no.2 is not legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She is not entitled to any maintenance, she claims herself wrongly as his wife. Learned court below has awarded maintenance in the impugned order without considering the plea taken by the revisionist in proper perspective. The impugned order is vitiated by law and deserves to be set aside. Opposite party no.2 is blackmailing and trying to extort money from the revisionist only due to the fact that she has been acquainted with the revisionist and both were on personal terms. No question of demand of dowry by the revisionist arises when he is not married with respondent no.2.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that there is ample evidence oral as well as documentary in the trial court record, which reveals that the marriage of revisionist with opposite party no.2 had taken place and she is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. Learned court below has considered this issue in the impugned judgment in elaborate manner and after due consideration of the evidence adduced by parties has given finding that the applicant, Pooja Kaushik is the wife of opposite party no.2, Arun Kumar. This finding of fact recorded by the trial court is based on evidence on record, is not to be disturbed in present criminal revision as this is trite law that finding of facts are not disturbed in revision unless these are perverse and not supported by legal evidence.

6. Learned court below has framed four points of determination on the basis of pleadings of the parties and after considering evidence adduced by the parties and discussing the evidence appearing on record in elaborate manner that in present case for the purposes of application for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. this fact is proved that applicant Pooja Kausik is wife of opposite party Arun Kumar. Learned court below has also given a finding that applicant is an intermediate passed woman who is not having independent source of earning. She also bears responsibility to maintain the child born from her previous husband. The opposite party is possessed of sufficient means to maintain his wife but he neglected to maintain her and failed to discharge matrimonial obligations.

7. Opposite party has admitted that he receives Rs.40,000/- as pension. He has not clarified his liabilities, therefore, applicant is entitled to receive maintenance from her husband according to his educational, economic and social documents upto the standard in which she was accustomed to live with her husband at his place.

8. Learned court below has awarded Rs.10,000/- as maintenance to the applicant from the date of filing application and arrears is directed to be paid in two monthly installments. The above findings of fact recorded by family court are based on evidence on record and need not be disturbed in present revision.

9. However keeping in view the fact that the revisionist is a pensioner and a huge sum on money is liable to be paid towards arrears of maintenance. The amount of maintenance Rs.10,000/- which is payable from the date of filing application to date of judgement is liable to be reduced to some extent in the interest of justice, therefore, it is directed that the revisionist will pay Rs.8,000/- per month to the applicant from the date of filing of application i.e. 31.7.2019 to date of judgement dated 02.12.2023 and thereafter at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month as awarded in the impugned judgement and order.

10. The arrears of maintenance from 31.07.2019 to date of judgement as modified by this order will be payable in five monthly installments and first installment will be payable from 21.04.2025. The remaining installment will be payable in succeeding months. Apart from that revisionist shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month as awarded in the impugned judgement on regular basis from the date of impugned judgement onwards.

11. The revision is partly allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Atul/SY ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad