Deepika Trivedi v. Anand Kumar Shukla) under Section
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47372 Court No. - 79 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1390 of 2025 Revisionist :- Anand Kumar Shukla Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arun Kumar Bajpai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satya Man Singh,Vidya Dhar Yadav Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 alongwith learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 20.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur in Case No.425 of 2023 (Deepika Trivedi vs. Anand Kumar Shukla) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Khaga, District Fatehpur, during the pedency of present criminal revision. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that opposite party no.2 is his wedded wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 22.01.2022. Further submitted that from the very outset of marriage the opposite party no.2 started misbehaving with the revisionist by saying that he is impotent and also made false allegations against his relatives brother and brother-in-law. She also lodged F.I.R. u/s 498A I.P.C. against him and other members of his family. He never neglected to maintain her and even today he is ready to keep her wife but she is not willing to live with him. Further submitted that he is working as teacher in school in Meerut and opposite party no.2 is also an educated lady and B.P.Ed. degree holder and also works as a teacher in a private school from where she earns Rs.45,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 was never ready and willing to live with him due to some other reasons and moved an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist with false facts. The learned trial court without considering the facts and material on record directed the revisionist to pay Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of application to the date of order to the opposite party no.2 which is beyond his capacity. The order passed by learned trial court is illegal, arbitrary and inappropriate, therefore, request to set aside the order and allow the revision. Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer as aforesaid and contended that in this case revisionist made false allegations against the wife/opposite party no.2 and also made remark that she was in affair with some other boy prior to the marriage as a result test of her virginity was got done by the police on 17.09.2023 in which she was found to be virgin. The revisionist also assaulted the opposite party no.2 and caused injuries to her and also compelled her to make relation with his other relatives which the opposite party no.2 did not agree that was the reason the revisionist made her away from the house and neglected to maintain her. A case u/s 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354(Kha), 120-B I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act was also lodged against the revisionist by the opposite party no.2 in this regard. He also contends that the opposite party though qualified and B.P.Ed. degree holder but she does not work as teacher in any school and earn Rs.45,000/- per month as stated by the revisionist. There is no any such material on record to show that she earns such amount. Admittedly, the revisionist is a teacher in a school as assistant teacher from the year 2012 and gets Rs.89,000/- per month as net salary. This fact has also been admitted by the revisionist before the learned trial court at the time of his examination. The learned trial court after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case passed the order in question and determined the amount of Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2/wife which is less than 25% of the total monthly income of the revisionist. Therefore, it cannot be said that learned trial court has passed the order illegally but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite party alongwith learned A.G.A., perusal of record and the order passed by the learned trial court in question, it appears that there is allegation of misbehaviour against the revisionist by his wife and now she is living separate from him and no any amount of maintenance is being given by him. Even before the learned trial court the revisionist made allegation against the opposite party no.2 that she was in relation with some other boy of other caste when she was studying in B.P.Ed. that was the reason she was not ready to marry with him but during the dispute between the parties virginity test of opposite party no.2 was also got done in which she was found to be virgin. All these facts show that there was reasonable cause for opposite party/wife to live separate from her husband and this fact was also well considered by the learned trial court while passing the order. There is nothing on record to show that opposite party no.2 is earning by teaching in school. On the other hand the revisionist is earning Rs.89,000/- per month as net salary by teaching in a school which has been admitted by him. He is capable in making payment of maintenance to the opposite party no.2/wife according to his and her status and class. Learned trial court has also considered the law as laid down in Shamima Farooqi vs. Shahid Khan A.I.R. 2015 SC 2025 and Rajnesh vs. Neha and others Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2020 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and then determined the amount of Rs.20,000/- per month in favour of the opposite party no.2 as maintenance which is less than 25% of the total monthly income of the revisionist which cannot be said to be excessive in view of observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhary vs. Rita Dey Chowdhary Nee Nandy on 19 April, 2017 AIR 2017 Supreme Court 2383. In the considered opinion of this Court, there appears no any illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 20.02.2025 but this revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, this criminal revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 4.4.2025 Ashok Gupta Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad