Shabnam Bano v. Naseem Javed),under Section

Firoz Haider : : G.A., Shamim Ahmad Ansari Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1.Supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in Court today, is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Firoz Haider, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Shamim Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

3. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Jaunpur in Petition No. 512 of 2017 (Shabnam Bano Vs. Naseem Javed),under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Zafrabad, District Jaunpur, by which the trial court has awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application i.e. 18.07.2017.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the opposite party no.2 had left her matrimonial home and started living separately without any reason, at her parental house. Learned counsel further submits that after marriage the opposite party no.2 has hardly resided 15 days with him and without any sufficient reason she left her matrimonial house. It is further submitted that the revisionist had filed suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights, even then she did not return back to her matrimonial house and thereafter the revisionist has performed his second marriage. At present he is living with his second wife. It is further submitted that the revisionist has met with an accident in the year 2023, therefore, he is unable to do any work. The maintenance amount awarded by the trial court is excessive and exhorbitent and he is not in a position to pay 2 CRLR No. 973 of 2024 the same to the opposite party no.2.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 have opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the revisionist and submitted that within 15 days of the marriage, no wedded wife can left her matrimonial home, unless and until the situation may have become unbearable. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submits that the opposite party no.2 was being tortured on account of additional demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs), the in-laws of opposite party no.2 used to tell her that husband of the opposite party no.2 is working in abroad, hence he required Rs.5,00,000/- to establish his own business at Delhi. In this regard, the opposite party no.2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court concerned.

6. 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, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 06.10.2024, it reflects that on the point of separate living without sufficient reason has been decided by the trial court while discussing the issue no.1, detailed reason have been recorded and the trial court has reached to the conclusion that the opposite party no.2 was being tortured on account of additional demand of dowry, due to this, some civil and criminal cases were also filed against each other. Lastly, the trial court had come to the conclusion that the opposite party no.2 is living separately with sufficient reason.The reasons recorded by the trial court with regard to separate living are sufficient and this Court being the Revisional, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and also substitute its own finding in place of findings of fact recorded by the trial court on the issue in question.

7. It is admitted case of the parties that there is no dispute with regard to the relation between the parties as husband and wife. It is also not in dispute that the revisionist has performed his second marriage in the year 2019 and he has met with an accident in the year 2023, meaning thereby before the revisionist met with an accident he has performed his second marriage. There is nothing on record to show that the opposite party no.2 has any source of income to maintain her livelihood. The provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are beneficial to the woman, hence it was enacted for the protection of the women and children from the despair, destitution and frustration. Therefore, it is the legal and pious duty of the 3 CRLR No. 973 of 2024 husband to maintain her wife and children. The trial court has not recorded that after accident, the revisionist has any kind of permanent disability, which may have affected his earning capacity.

8. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, there is nothing on record to show the income of the revisionist. Even if the revisionist is considered as labour, he can easily earn Rs.500/- per day, accordingly, he will earn Rs.15,000/- per month. It is also pertinent to mention here that the revisionist has performed his second marriage and also maintaining his second wife, it means he has sufficient source of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 observed that the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary/income of the husband, which comes to Rs.3750/-, which is almost equal to the amount of Rs.4,000/- as has been awarded by the trial court and therefore, the same cannot be said to be excessive keeping in view the inflation rate, medical and other expenses, hence the present revision deserves to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision having no force is dismissed. September 10, 2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh,J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Firoz Haider : : G.A., Shamim Ahmad Ansari Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1.Supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 in Court today, is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Firoz Haider, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Shamim Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well as learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 and perused the record.

3. The instant criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Jaunpur in Petition No. 512 of 2017 (Shabnam Bano Vs. Naseem Javed),under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Zafrabad, District Jaunpur, by which the trial court has awarded maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application i.e. 18.07.2017.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the opposite party no.2 had left her matrimonial home and started living separately without any reason, at her parental house. Learned counsel further submits that after marriage the opposite party no.2 has hardly resided 15 days with him and without any sufficient reason she left her matrimonial house. It is further submitted that the revisionist had filed suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights, even then she did not return back to her matrimonial house and thereafter the revisionist has performed his second marriage. At present he is living with his second wife. It is further submitted that the revisionist has met with an accident in the year 2023, therefore, he is unable to do any work. The maintenance amount awarded by the trial court is excessive and exhorbitent and he is not in a position to pay 2 CRLR No. 973 of 2024 the same to the opposite party no.2.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA appearing for the State-opposite party no.1 have opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the revisionist and submitted that within 15 days of the marriage, no wedded wife can left her matrimonial home, unless and until the situation may have become unbearable. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submits that the opposite party no.2 was being tortured on account of additional demand of dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs), the in-laws of opposite party no.2 used to tell her that husband of the opposite party no.2 is working in abroad, hence he required Rs.5,00,000/- to establish his own business at Delhi. In this regard, the opposite party no.2 has moved an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the court concerned.

6. 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, the order passed by the learned trial court dated 06.10.2024, it reflects that on the point of separate living without sufficient reason has been decided by the trial court while discussing the issue no.1, detailed reason have been recorded and the trial court has reached to the conclusion that the opposite party no.2 was being tortured on account of additional demand of dowry, due to this, some civil and criminal cases were also filed against each other. Lastly, the trial court had come to the conclusion that the opposite party no.2 is living separately with sufficient reason.The reasons recorded by the trial court with regard to separate living are sufficient and this Court being the Revisional, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and also substitute its own finding in place of findings of fact recorded by the trial court on the issue in question.

7. It is admitted case of the parties that there is no dispute with regard to the relation between the parties as husband and wife. It is also not in dispute that the revisionist has performed his second marriage in the year 2019 and he has met with an accident in the year 2023, meaning thereby before the revisionist met with an accident he has performed his second marriage. There is nothing on record to show that the opposite party no.2 has any source of income to maintain her livelihood. The provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are beneficial to the woman, hence it was enacted for the protection of the women and children from the despair, destitution and frustration. Therefore, it is the legal and pious duty of the 3 CRLR No. 973 of 2024 husband to maintain her wife and children. The trial court has not recorded that after accident, the revisionist has any kind of permanent disability, which may have affected his earning capacity.

8. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, there is nothing on record to show the income of the revisionist. Even if the revisionist is considered as labour, he can easily earn Rs.500/- per day, accordingly, he will earn Rs.15,000/- per month. It is also pertinent to mention here that the revisionist has performed his second marriage and also maintaining his second wife, it means he has sufficient source of income. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Versus Neha and Another (2021) 2 Supreme Court Cases 324; Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383 and Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari (1970) 3 SCC 129 observed that the maintenance amount can be fixed to the extent of 25% of the net salary/income of the husband, which comes to Rs.3750/-, which is almost equal to the amount of Rs.4,000/- as has been awarded by the trial court and therefore, the same cannot be said to be excessive keeping in view the inflation rate, medical and other expenses, hence the present revision deserves to be dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the instant criminal revision having no force is dismissed. September 10, 2025 Prajapati RK (Madan Pal Singh,J.) RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad