Smt. Nasreen and others v. Tanveer Saklain Ahmad. By the impugned judgment and order
Case Details
Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3148 of 2005 Revisionist :- Tanveer Saklain Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satyendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J. 1. Case taken up in the revised call. None is present for the revisionist. Learned A.G.A. is present.
Legal Reasoning
2 This criminal revision is filed to set-aside the judgment and order dated 2.6.2005 passed by Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.1/Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad in Case No. 95 of 2004 Smt. Nasreen and others Vs. Tanveer Saklain Ahmad. By the impugned judgment and order the learned trial court has allowed the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist and has awarded monthly maintenance allowance to applicants to that case. 3. The application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by O.P. Nos. 2 to 5 alleging therein that marriage of applicant no. 1 Smt. Nasreen was solemnized with opposite party Tanveer Saklain on 7.3.1995. Out of their wedlock three issues applicant nos. 2 to 4 Km. Tabinda Saifi, Km. Tanzila Khatoon and Tanzeem Maaz were born. Opposite party used to harass and torture the applicant no. 1 and has deserted the applicants. The applicant no. 1 is a household lady and has no source of income. Applicants are unable to maintain themselves. The annual income of opposite party is Rs. 3 lac. He is income tax payee and is a Chartered Accountant. Opposite party without any reason has deserted the applicants on the aforesaid grounds maintenance was claimed. Opposite party appeared in the case and filed his objections. He admitted the fact of marriage and that applicant nos. 2 to 4 are issues born out of their wedlock. Denying all other allegations of the applicants the opposite party alleged that applicant no. 1 without any sufficient reason is not living with the opposite party. He also admitted that he has performed second marriage. It is further alleged that the income of opposite party is Rs. 50,000/- to 51,000/- per year and he is a Chartered Accountant. The applicant no. 1 is an educated lady and she is enable to maintain herself. She is doing profession of tailoring and weiving from which she earns Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month. Learned trial court framed following three points for determination: 1. Whether the applicant no. 1 is legally wedded wife of opposite party and applicant nos. 2 to 4 are their issues; 2. Whether applicant no. 1 is living separately for just reason and; 3. Whether the applicants are unable to maintain themselves and opposite party is not maintaining them. After taking evidence the learned trial court by the impugned order has decided all the points for determination in favour of the applicants and has allowed the application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. The learned trial court has awarded Rs. 2,000/- per month to applicant no. 1 and Rs. 1,000/- per month each to applicant nos. 2 to 4 as maintenance from the date of application. 4. The main ground of the revision is that the order is based on wrong appreciation of evidence and surmises and conjectures. The trial court has not given reasons for awarding Rs. 2,000/- per month to the O.P. No. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- per month each to the O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 from the date of application. The trial court has wrongly fixed Rs. 15,000/- per month as income of the revisionist. Revisionist is ready to keep her wife and children with him and he has made efforts many times to keep them but O.P. No. 2 has refused to perform her marital obligations, so she is not entitled for any maintenance. The O.P. No. 2 has remarried with Mohammad Yunus who has filed a suit for conjugal rights against O.P. No. 2 on 30.5.2005 being Suit No. 223 of 2005 which is still pending before the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Ghaziabad. The trial court has passed the impugned order without considering the statement of Nasreen and has taken a wrong view that there is good reason for separate living of Smt. Nasreen. The maintenance awarded by the trial court is too excessive. 5. The learned trial court has narrated the entire pleadings and evidence produced by the parties. The learned trial court has also analyzed the entire evidence and on the basis of analysis has come to the conclusion that applicant no. 1 is legally wedded wife of opposite party and applicant nos. 2 to 4 are their issues. Further that applicant no. 1 is living separately with the opposite party for just reason and she is unable to maintain herself while opposite party is ignoring their maintenance. The learned trial court has also analyzed the status of the parties, the profession of the opposite party, the monthly income and after analyzing all the evidence in their respect has passed the order of maintenance. 6. It is admitted fact that O.P. No. 2 is the legally wedded wife and O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 are issues of the revisionist. O.P. No. 2 with his evidence has corroborated that revisionist used to torture and harass her. It is also admission of the revisionist that he has performed second marriage. So there are sufficient grounds for separate living. It is the admission of the revisionist that he is a Chartered Accountant. Considering the nature of the profession and status of the parties it appears that revisionist has not stated true facts about his income. The learned trial court after assessing all the material on the point has awarded Rs. 2,000/- to O.P. NO. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- each to O.P. Nos. 3 to 5 as monthly maintenance which is not excessive. So the finding given by the learned trial court appears to be just and proper. There is no perversity or illegality in the finding recorded by the trial court. The amount of maintenance is also not be excessive. There is no sufficient ground to make any interference in the impugned order. The revision is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 18.11.2022 Masarrat Digitally signed by MASARRAT HUSAIN Date: 2022.11.24 10:55:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad