Smt. Harpreet Kaur v. Simran Deep Singh), under Section
Case Details
Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2501 of 2022 Revisionist :- Simrandeep Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Annapurna Devi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Miss Annapurna Devi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. This criminal revision has been filed challenging judgement and order dated 13.4.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court Hapur, District Hapur, in Complaint Case No. 293 of 2019 (Smt. Harpreet Kaur Vs. Simran Deep Singh), under Section 125 Cr. P. C., P.S. Hapur Nagar, District Hapur, whereby an amount of Rs. 6000/- has been awarded towards maintenance in favour of complainant opposite party 2. Perused the record. Record shows that marriage of complainant opposite party 2 Harpreet Kaur was solemnized with revisionist on 24.11.2018 in accordance with Sikh rites and customs. However, according to opposite party 2 revisionist and his family members were dissatisfied with the goods and dowry brought by complainant opposite party 2 at the time of her marriage. Additional demand of dowry by way of four wheeler was raised. However, the demand of additional dowry remained unsatisfied. Resultantly, physical and mental criminality is alleged to have been committed upon complainant opposite party 2. Ultimately, complainant opposite party 2 is said to have been ousted from her marital home on 4.3.2019. Since then, opposite party 2 is living separately at her parental home. Faced with despair and destitution, complainant opposite party 2 filed an application dated 22.8.2019 before Family Court, Hapur, District Hapur under Section 125 Cr. P. c. claiming therein that she be awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. Same was registered as Case No. 293 of 2019 (Smt. Harpreet Kaur Vs. Simran Deep Singh), under Section 125 Cr. P. C., P.S. Hapur City, District Hapur. Application for maintenance filed by complainant opposite party 2 was opposed by revisionist. He filed his written statement/objection (paper No. 10A) in aforementioned complaint case. Apart from denying the allegations made in the complaint, it was further pleaded by revisionist that opposite party 2 is living separately without any sufficient cause. Complainant is a lady of sufficient means and therefore able to maintain herself. Opposite party 2 has failed to discharge her martial obligations. On the aforesaid premise, it was thus contended by revisionist before Court below that application for maintenance filed by complainant opposite party 2 is liable to be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, Court below framed the following issues/points of determination:- (1) Whether applicant opposite party 2 is the legally wedded wife of revisionist. (2) Whether applicant opposite party 2 is living separately from revisionist on sufficient grounds. (3) Whether applicant opposite party 2 is unable to maintain herself. (4) Whether revisionist is a man of sufficient means and has failed to maintain applicant opposite party 2 or ignored her. (5) Relief With regard to issue no. 1, Court below on the basis of admission of the parties concluded that the applicant opposite party 2 is the legally wedded wife of revisionist. With regard to issue no. 2 Court below came to the conclusion that burden to prove the same is upon applicant opposite party 2. Aforesaid issues were decided in favour of applicant opposite party 2 in the affirmative. In respect of issue no. 3, it was held by Court below that burden to prove the same is upon applicant opposite party 2. Court below concluded that no such material has been adduced by revisionist to establish that applicant opposite party 2 is able to maintain herself. Resultlantly, the said issue was also decided in favour of applicant opposite party 2. With regard to issue no. 4, Court below came to the conclusion that burden to prove the same is upon applicant opposite party 2. On the basis of material on record, Court below came to the conclusion that revisionist is a man of sufficient means, but has failed to maintain his legally wedded wife i.e. applicant opposite party 2. In view of the findings recorded with regard to issues 1 to 4, Court below held that applicant opposite party 2 is entitled to maintenance at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month from the date of application dated 22.8.2019. Accordingly, Court below by means of order dated 13.04.2022 allowed the application for maintenance filed by opposite party 2. Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid, revisionist has now approached this Court by means of present criminal revision. Miss Annpurna Devi, the learned counsel for revisionist contends that order impugned in present criminal revision is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. Court below has not recorded any finding with regard to the income of revisionist. Court below further failed to consider the family circumstances of the revisionist. In view of above, the amount of maintenance awarded by Court below to applicant opposite party 2 is not only harsh but also excessive. Court below has further acted in excess of jurisdiction by awarding maintenance from the date of application and not from the date of order. On the cumulative strength of above, it is urged by learned counsel for revisionist that order impugned in present criminal revision cannot be sustained in law and fact. Consequently, same is liable to be set aside by this Court. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. Learned A.G.A. contends that order impugned passed by Court below is perfectly just and legal. Court below has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order nor the finding recorded by Court below in the impugned order can be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. Learned A.G.A. has then invited the attention of Court to the grounds of revision and on basis thereof he submits that none of the findings returned by Court below on the issues/points of determination framed by Court below have been challenged. He, therefore, submits that once the findings cannot be dislodged, the conclusion cannot be altered. Revisionist has already initiated divorce proceedings against applicant opposite party 2 is is clearly mentioned in internal page 18 of the certified copy of the impugned order dated 13.4.2022. There is nothing on record to show that applicant has maintained his wife since 4.3.2019, when she was ousted from her marital home. As such, revisionist has failed to discharge his legal and moral obligations, inasmuch as applicant opposite party 2 is his legally wedded wife and revisionist is bound to maintain her. Learned A.G.A. has then referred to judgement of Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it has been held that maintenance has to be awarded from the date of application and not from the date of order. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. submits that no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of revisionist. When confronted with above, learned counsel for revisionist could not overcome the same. Having heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record and the submissions urged by learned counsel for the parties, this Court comes to the conclusion that opposite party 2 is the legally wedded wife of revisionist. She has been residing separately since 4.3.2019. However, revisionist has failed to establish before Court below that he has been maintaining opposite party 2 since then. As such, revisionist has failed to discharge his moral and legal obligation towards applicant opposite party 2 even when revisionist is bound to maintain her. Furthermore, nothing was brought on record by revisionist before Court below to establish his income. As such, no illegality has been committed by Court below by drawing an adverse inference against applicant. It is well settled that maintenance awarded in favour of wife must commensurate with the status of the husband. Court below has exercised its jurisdiction diligently and not in a cavalier manner. Findings recorded by Court below are finding of fact, which could not be established to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. For the facts and reasons noted above, present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 20.7.2022 HSM Digitally signed by HARI SHANKER MISHRA Date: 2022.07.22 18:04:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad