Smt. Vijay Laxmi and another v. Sanjay Kumar Yadav) under section

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 1.3.2024 passed by Principal Judge, family court, Sant Kabir Nagar in maintenance case no. 80/11/2021 (Smt. Vijay Laxmi and another vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav) under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- to the applicant no. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- to applicant no. 2 who are his wife and son, from the date of filing of application. It is also directed in the impugned order that any amount obtained by the applicant towards maintenance shall be liable to be adjusted. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Chandra Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the original applicant no. 1 who is respondent no. 2 before this Court, is residing separately from her husband without any sufficient cause; she has stated in her evidence before the court below that her husband Sanjay Yadav intends to take her back to his place but she is not inclined to go with him; she wants maintenance while residing separately from him; her husband returned her entire goods, Stridhan and money; she will give divorce to him. The revisionist has not given any maintenance since she has come to her parental place. Thus a claim for maintenance made in the application is barred under section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. He next submitted that wrong averment has been made by respondent no. 2 in the maintenance case as well as in her evidence before the court below that the revisionist works in Rajendra Toyota, Firm Gorakhpur; infact he is undergoing his LLB course. Prior to this, he did B.com and M.BA and has admitted this fact in his evidence as DW-1; he was not selected for any post through competitive examination after competing his M.BA; he also did BTC in the year 2020; the parties are blessed with a son namely Harshit. He next submitted that the revisionist is still ready to take her wife and son back to his place and maintain them upto his financial ability. He has filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act but even then respondent no. 2 has categorically refused to live with him, therefore, no case of maintenance is made out against the revisionist. He next submitted that the parties belong to district Sant Kabir Nagar but they are residing in the city of Gorakhpur; the respondent no. 2 is graduate and BTC trained teacher in a convent school which is a private school situated at her parental place; she is maintaining herself by her own income but this fact has not been considered by the court below; the respondent no. 2 has failed to establish this fact that the revisionist is doing job in Rajendra Toyota firm, Gorakhpur as a marketing manager from where he gets Rs. 01 lakh salary per month as alleged by her. Learned court below has not considered this fact that the revisionist has 04 brothers and all are residing separately from their father whereas the revisionist is depending upon his father for his livelihood; the respondent no. 2 has failed to prove income of the revisionist and despite this fact that learned court below has awarded maintenance against him to the tune of Rs. 9,000/- per month without assessing income of the revisionist. He is still unemployed. He is undergoing LLB course at Siddharth University, Siddharth Nagar. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the respondent no. 2 has filed an application for maintenance before the family court, Gorakhpur wherein she has made specific allegation of demand of dowry, harassment, torture and matrimonial cruelty against the revisionist and his family members; she gave birth to a male child at her parental place but even then the revisionist has not come there to take care of his wife and newly born child; the applicant was thrown out from her matrimonial home by giving beating and since then she is residing at her parental place. He also submitted that learned court below has given finding that the applicant has stated that the opposite party is working as marketing manager in Rajendra Toyota, Gorakhpur but she could not file any document to show his monthly salary; the applicant has also filed extracts of Khatauni of the family of the revisionist in which name of father of revisionist is shown as a co-sharer; the applicant has filed extracts of attendance register of employees of Rajendra Toyota, Gorakhpur which shows that the revisionist has marked his attendance there and learned court below has placed reliance thereon. Learned counsel further submitted that it is difficult to believe that a person who is B.Com, M.BA. is depending on agricultural income of his father. This fact has surfaced in evidence before the court below that the revisionist has never visited his wife and son at her parental place since she was residing there separately from him. He also admitted in his evidence as DW-1 that father of the applicant is suffering from cancer but he has not visited him; he has not provided any clothe or maintenance to his son; his wife is residing separately at her parental place since 17.3.2020. A perusal of record reveals that the original applicant Smt. Vijay Laxmi filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, family court, Sant Kabir Nagar seeking maintenance from opposite party, her husband, for maintenance of herself and her minor son Harshit; the applicant has stated in maintenance petition that her marriage was solemnized with opposite party Sanjay Yadav on 10.6.2019 according to Hindu rites and rituals; her father had given sufficient cash, valuable and jewellery in the marriage to opposite party but after living at her matrimonial place for some time, she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs. 2,50,000/-. She informed about the demand to her father telephonically who visited her place of in-laws and tried to persuade them but they were in continue to torture her; she became pregnant in the meanwhile and many panchayats were convened but her in-laws were rigid on their demand of dowry. On 16.3.2020 she was turned out from her matrimonial home; she gave birth to applicant no. 2 at her parental place but neither opposite party nor any of the family member visited her or her newly born child; the opposite party owns a Pukka house in the village Rampur south and a residential house in the city of Gorakhpur. He also possessed 30-40 bigha agricultural land from which he earns Rs. 01 lakh per month. Apart from it, he posted as Marketing Manager in Rajendra Toyota and receive salary around one lakh therefrom. The applicant is not able to maintain herself; her father is himself suffering from financial constraints. The opposite party filed his objection with affidavit and denied allegation made by the applicant. He stated that he is educated unemployed person; he is preparing for competitive examination at Gorakhpur but could not get job; the applicant was not ready to live with him; she is B.Sc, B.T.C degree holder and would work as teacher prior to marriage in Nath Nagar, Convent School; he permitted her to continue her teaching job after the marriage and provided all convenience to her; her wife gave birth to a son on 1.12.2020 but thereafter she never came to place of opposite party even after much persuasion and he filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 19.1.2021 which is pending. The opposite party is M.Com, M.BA and pursuing his L.LB course; He denied the fact that he is working at Toyota company; he also did B.T.C in the year 2020; the applicant has also filed extracts of Khataruni of agricultural land in which name of grandfather of opposite party is recorded as co-sharer. He stated that he is depending on her father; the applicant herself refused to live with him and is living separately from him without sufficient cause; he wanted to keep her with full dignity and honour but she did not oblige him. Learned court below after considering the pleadings and evidence of parties has given finding that although the applicant has been successful to prove the fact that the opposite party works as an employee in Rajendra Toyota company, Gorakhpur but no documentary evidence has been filed regarding his salary; the opposite party is highly educated person; the applicant is not able to maintain herself and her minor son. Learned court below has cited the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anju Garg vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1363 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able- bodied, and could not his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute." Learned court below has also cited the judgement of Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 wherein it is held that "(ii) A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the Respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the Respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort." The original applicant has filed a copy of attendance register of Rajendra Toyota company wherein name of the revisionist is mentioned, on the basis of which, learned court below has found that the opposite party works there whereas opposite party stated that he was undergoing internship there and for that reason, his name is mentioned in the attendance register. Be that as it may, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, higher qualification of the revisionist, his financial background, his agricultural assets, the amount awarded to the revisionist by the impugned judgement does not sound arbitrary, exorbitant or unfair. This is quite reasonable and itself in lower side keeping in view the market condition and inflation. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgement and order. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 1.3.2024 passed by Principal Judge, family court, Sant Kabir Nagar in maintenance case no. 80/11/2021 (Smt. Vijay Laxmi and another vs. Sanjay Kumar Yadav) under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- to the applicant no. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- to applicant no. 2 who are his wife and son, from the date of filing of application. It is also directed in the impugned order that any amount obtained by the applicant towards maintenance shall be liable to be adjusted. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Chandra Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the original applicant no. 1 who is respondent no. 2 before this Court, is residing separately from her husband without any sufficient cause; she has stated in her evidence before the court below that her husband Sanjay Yadav intends to take her back to his place but she is not inclined to go with him; she wants maintenance while residing separately from him; her husband returned her entire goods, Stridhan and money; she will give divorce to him. The revisionist has not given any maintenance since she has come to her parental place. Thus a claim for maintenance made in the application is barred under section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. He next submitted that wrong averment has been made by respondent no. 2 in the maintenance case as well as in her evidence before the court below that the revisionist works in Rajendra Toyota, Firm Gorakhpur; infact he is undergoing his LLB course. Prior to this, he did B.com and M.BA and has admitted this fact in his evidence as DW-1; he was not selected for any post through competitive examination after competing his M.BA; he also did BTC in the year 2020; the parties are blessed with a son namely Harshit. He next submitted that the revisionist is still ready to take her wife and son back to his place and maintain them upto his financial ability. He has filed suit for restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act but even then respondent no. 2 has categorically refused to live with him, therefore, no case of maintenance is made out against the revisionist. He next submitted that the parties belong to district Sant Kabir Nagar but they are residing in the city of Gorakhpur; the respondent no. 2 is graduate and BTC trained teacher in a convent school which is a private school situated at her parental place; she is maintaining herself by her own income but this fact has not been considered by the court below; the respondent no. 2 has failed to establish this fact that the revisionist is doing job in Rajendra Toyota firm, Gorakhpur as a marketing manager from where he gets Rs. 01 lakh salary per month as alleged by her. Learned court below has not considered this fact that the revisionist has 04 brothers and all are residing separately from their father whereas the revisionist is depending upon his father for his livelihood; the respondent no. 2 has failed to prove income of the revisionist and despite this fact that learned court below has awarded maintenance against him to the tune of Rs. 9,000/- per month without assessing income of the revisionist. He is still unemployed. He is undergoing LLB course at Siddharth University, Siddharth Nagar. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submitted that the respondent no. 2 has filed an application for maintenance before the family court, Gorakhpur wherein she has made specific allegation of demand of dowry, harassment, torture and matrimonial cruelty against the revisionist and his family members; she gave birth to a male child at her parental place but even then the revisionist has not come there to take care of his wife and newly born child; the applicant was thrown out from her matrimonial home by giving beating and since then she is residing at her parental place. He also submitted that learned court below has given finding that the applicant has stated that the opposite party is working as marketing manager in Rajendra Toyota, Gorakhpur but she could not file any document to show his monthly salary; the applicant has also filed extracts of Khatauni of the family of the revisionist in which name of father of revisionist is shown as a co-sharer; the applicant has filed extracts of attendance register of employees of Rajendra Toyota, Gorakhpur which shows that the revisionist has marked his attendance there and learned court below has placed reliance thereon. Learned counsel further submitted that it is difficult to believe that a person who is B.Com, M.BA. is depending on agricultural income of his father. This fact has surfaced in evidence before the court below that the revisionist has never visited his wife and son at her parental place since she was residing there separately from him. He also admitted in his evidence as DW-1 that father of the applicant is suffering from cancer but he has not visited him; he has not provided any clothe or maintenance to his son; his wife is residing separately at her parental place since 17.3.2020. A perusal of record reveals that the original applicant Smt. Vijay Laxmi filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, family court, Sant Kabir Nagar seeking maintenance from opposite party, her husband, for maintenance of herself and her minor son Harshit; the applicant has stated in maintenance petition that her marriage was solemnized with opposite party Sanjay Yadav on 10.6.2019 according to Hindu rites and rituals; her father had given sufficient cash, valuable and jewellery in the marriage to opposite party but after living at her matrimonial place for some time, she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty and harassment by her husband and in-laws due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry of Rs. 2,50,000/-. She informed about the demand to her father telephonically who visited her place of in-laws and tried to persuade them but they were in continue to torture her; she became pregnant in the meanwhile and many panchayats were convened but her in-laws were rigid on their demand of dowry. On 16.3.2020 she was turned out from her matrimonial home; she gave birth to applicant no. 2 at her parental place but neither opposite party nor any of the family member visited her or her newly born child; the opposite party owns a Pukka house in the village Rampur south and a residential house in the city of Gorakhpur. He also possessed 30-40 bigha agricultural land from which he earns Rs. 01 lakh per month. Apart from it, he posted as Marketing Manager in Rajendra Toyota and receive salary around one lakh therefrom. The applicant is not able to maintain herself; her father is himself suffering from financial constraints. The opposite party filed his objection with affidavit and denied allegation made by the applicant. He stated that he is educated unemployed person; he is preparing for competitive examination at Gorakhpur but could not get job; the applicant was not ready to live with him; she is B.Sc, B.T.C degree holder and would work as teacher prior to marriage in Nath Nagar, Convent School; he permitted her to continue her teaching job after the marriage and provided all convenience to her; her wife gave birth to a son on 1.12.2020 but thereafter she never came to place of opposite party even after much persuasion and he filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights on 19.1.2021 which is pending. The opposite party is M.Com, M.BA and pursuing his L.LB course; He denied the fact that he is working at Toyota company; he also did B.T.C in the year 2020; the applicant has also filed extracts of Khataruni of agricultural land in which name of grandfather of opposite party is recorded as co-sharer. He stated that he is depending on her father; the applicant herself refused to live with him and is living separately from him without sufficient cause; he wanted to keep her with full dignity and honour but she did not oblige him. Learned court below after considering the pleadings and evidence of parties has given finding that although the applicant has been successful to prove the fact that the opposite party works as an employee in Rajendra Toyota company, Gorakhpur but no documentary evidence has been filed regarding his salary; the opposite party is highly educated person; the applicant is not able to maintain herself and her minor son. Learned court below has cited the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anju Garg vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1363 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "the husband is required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able- bodied, and could not his obligation, except on the legally permissible grounds mentioned in the statute." Learned court below has also cited the judgement of Rajnesh vs. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 wherein it is held that "(ii) A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the Respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home. The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the Respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort." The original applicant has filed a copy of attendance register of Rajendra Toyota company wherein name of the revisionist is mentioned, on the basis of which, learned court below has found that the opposite party works there whereas opposite party stated that he was undergoing internship there and for that reason, his name is mentioned in the attendance register. Be that as it may, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, higher qualification of the revisionist, his financial background, his agricultural assets, the amount awarded to the revisionist by the impugned judgement does not sound arbitrary, exorbitant or unfair. This is quite reasonable and itself in lower side keeping in view the market condition and inflation. I do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgement and order. The revision is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 12.3.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad