Revisionist(s) v. State Of U.P. And Anr

1. Heard Sri Mayank Mohan Dutt Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist Panna Lal against the judgement and order dated

27.06.2018 passed by Mr. Kumar Prashant, Additional District Judge / Family Court / FTC-2, Gorakhpur, whereby the petition for maintenance filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 561 of 2009 (Smt. Premlata vs. Panney Lal) has been allowed and the opposite party has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month, as maintenance allowance to the applicant from the date of order on every 10th day of the month.

3. Since, the present revision has been filed in the year, 2018 but none appeared to press the revision on behalf of the revisionist in revised call and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 Smt. Premlata has insisted towards the disposal of the 2 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2018. present criminal revision. Therefore, the present criminal revision is being heard and decided on merits.

4. The brief fact of the case, on the basis of application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C, is that on 04.06.1991, the revisionist and the opposite party no. 2 got married as per Hindu rites and rituals and were living as legally wedded husband and wife. During marriage ceremony, all necessary things were given by the father of the applicant but due to some differences regarding dowry she was harassed and beaten. On 15.05.2009, when opposite party No. 2, (Smt. Premlata), was forced to leave her in-laws' house, then she lodged a complaint to the police on

03.07.2009 and the matter was registered as Case Crime No. 694 of 2009 under Sections 498-A, 323, and 316 I.P.C. after which the revisionist was released on bail. In her petition, opposite party No. 2 has further stated that she had no source of income, whereas the revisionist had business and agricultural land. On the basis of the above, she claimed a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance allowance.

5. On the above petition, the revisionist/opposite party filed a reply (Paper 12 Ka), wherein he had admitted the marriage between them and lived as legally wedded husband and wife. He has further stated that after two years of their marriage, they got separated as per the traditions prevailing in their society. Thereafter, opposite party Smt. Premlata got married with one Abbas and started living with him as husband and wife. It was also stated in the reply that Abbas had purchased a land in the name of opposite party (Smt. Premlata) on 26.11.2010. In the aforesaid reply, he has also stated that Smt. Premlata is an Anganwadi worker and is earning a monthly salary of 1,700/-. Åⅲ On the basis of the above, the revisionist had prayed for the rejection of the application for maintenance filed by opposite party (Smt. Premlata). 3 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2018.

6. In the case before the court below, the opposite party – Smt. Premlata has been examined as P.W-1 whereas revisionist was examined as O.P.W.-1. Thereafter, other relevant documents were submitted from both the sides.

7. The learned court below after hearing both the parties and perusing the records placed before it, allowed the petition filed by opposite party (Smt. Premlata) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month, to be paid to the opposite party no. 2 by the revisionist by 10th day of each month. The maintenance was to be paid from the date of the order, i.e. (27.06.2018).

8. Based on the aforesaid facts, the present revision was filed by the revisionist Panna Lal on the grounds that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record with regard to the income of the revisionist (Husband). The learned court below has refused to accept the income of Rs.1,700/- of opposite party no. 2 as Anganwari Sahaika. The impugned order has further been assailed on the ground that the learned court below had ignored to accept the fact that the opposite party no. 2 (wife) had re-married with one Abbas Ali, who has purchased a plot in the name of opposite party no. 2 (Smt. Premlata) vide registered sale deed dated 26.11.2010. In this light, the present revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 27.06.2018 passed by Additional District Judge / Family Court / F.T.C., Gorakhpur whereby maintenance of Rs.4,000/- has been allowed to be paid to the opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 561 of 2009 (Smt. Premlata vs. Panna Lal) from the date of the order.

9. In the instant revision by means of supplementary affidavit, certified copy of the judgement of Additional Session Judge / F.T.C. Court no. 1, Gorakhpur dated 30.10.2021 in S.T. No. 244 of 2016 (State of U.P. vs. Panney Lal) has also been filed in which 4 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2018. the present revisionist i.e. Panney Lal has been acquitted against the charges under Sections 498-A, 323 and 316 I.P.C. In the said supplementary affidavit, an information dated 21.08.2023 provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has also been filed which speaks about the payment of Rs.2,750/- per month to Smt. Premlata as honorarium.

10. Thereafter, in the present revision, a short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Smt. Premlata (opposite party no. 2) stating therein that this Court vide order dated 23.08.2018 has referred the matter to the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for reconciliation between the revisionist and the opposite party no. 2 but the said mediation has failed on

13.02.2018. On 23.08.2018 this Court passed the following order : “The matter is regarding a matrimonial dispute arising out of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Additional District Judge/ Family Court & Fast Track Court II, Gorakhpur vide order dated 27.06.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.561 of 2009 has awarded Rs.4000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of order. The revisionist is husband and opposite party no. 2 is wife. Without going into the merits of the revisionist's case at this stage, since the matter is a matrimonial dispute between revisionist and opposite party no.2, who are husband and wife, it is desirable that the parties be required to attempt a re- conciliation of their differences with the assistance of the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. It is directed that revisionist shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within three weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of which Rs. 7,000/- would be paid to the opposite party no. 2 for appearance before the Mediation Centre. Upon deposit aforesaid being made good, the Mediation Centre will issue notice to both the parties fixing an early date for appearance and further proceedings before the Centre. The Mediation Centre will submit their report within two months from the date parties are required to first appear before the Centre. Thereafter the case shall be listed before appropriate Bench. 5 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2018. In the meanwhile, in case the revisionist deposits a sum of Rs.3000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 with the Additional District Judge/ Family Court & Fast Track Court II, Gorakhpur by the 10th of each succeeding month with effect from the date of order commencing 10th September, 2018, operation of the impugned order dated 27.06.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.561 of 2009 passed by the Additional District Judge/ Family Court & Fast Track Court II, Gorakhpur, shall remain stayed. The Family Court upon periodical deposit of maintenance made pursuant to this order by the applicant shall immediately release the same in favour of opposite party no.2 without asking for any security. In case of default in adherence to the aforesaid schedule of deposit or in making good the requisites in the account of the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the interim order granted above shall automatically stand vacated.”

11. During the course of argument, it is said that the revisionist has not complied with the order of this Court dated 23.08.2018 to the effect to deposit Rs.3000/- per month to the opposite party no.

2. The opposite party no. 2 is standing at the verge of starvation. The revisionist has no interest in deciding the revision and he is also not complying the order dated 23.08.2018 of this Court.

12. Heard learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

13. As the matter relates to the matrimonial dispute between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2, who are husband and wife and the maintenance granted arising out of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which the revisionist is not coming and is also said to be not complying the order of this court dated

23.08.2018, by means of which he has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month by the 10th day of each month with effect from the date of order. With the aforesaid direction, the impugned order dated 27.06.2018 was kept in abeyance. It has been further observed in the aforesaid order that in case of default 6 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2018. in adherence to the aforesaid schedule of deposit, the interim order granted above shall automatically stand vacated.

14. In these circumstances, feeling the necessity emerged by the order of this Court dated 23.08.2018 and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, the instant revision is being decided on merits, is absence of revisionist.

15. In this context, it seems necessary to reproduce the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. :- “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1) refuses to maintain - If any person having sufficient means neglects or (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether (b) married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.”

16. At the first instance, keeping in view the aforesaid legal provision and facts placed, it is undisputed that the revisionist and the opposite party no. 2 are legally wedded husband and wife, and further the perusal of the record transpires that the parties were not having cordial relations between them due to which the opposite party no. 2 had filed a case against the revisionist on

03.07.2009 as Case Crime No. 694 of 2009, under Sections 498- A, 323 and 316 I.P.C. The opposite party no. 2 has also stated before the court below that she was being harassed by her in- laws in demand of dowry, therefore, she started staying with her parents. The revisionist appeared before the court below and had 7 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2018. admitted the marriage between them and also having three children out of their lawful wedlock.

17. Learned court below, after evaluating all the evidences produced by both the parties has come to the conclusion that the applicant / opposite party no. 2 is earning Rs.800/- per month as Anganwadi worker which is not sufficient to maintain herself at the present time. It is the legal and social obligation of the revisionist to maintain his wife. On the basis of above, the learned court below has granted Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no. 2. On the point of entitlement of maintenance to earning wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it has been categorically held in the case of Chaturbhuj vs. Sitabhai AIR 2008 SC 530 and Suneeta Kachhwah vs. Anil Kachhwah, AIR 2015 SC 554 that merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

18. Thus, in the light of observation made hereinabove and keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Chaturbhuj vs. Sitabhai and Suneeta Kachhwah vs. Anil Kachhwah (supra), the impugned order dated 27.06.2018 passed by Additional District Judge / Family Court / F.T.C.-2, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 561 of 2009 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt. Premlata vs. Panney Lal) is just and reasonable and therefore, no interference is warranted by means of the present revision.

19. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. The order dated 27.06.2018 passed by Additional District Judge / Family Court / F.T.C.-2, Gorakhpur is hereby confirmed.

20. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (Tej Pratap Tiwari, J.) Spetember 26, 2025 Manoj MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Mayank Mohan Dutt Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State.

2. The present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist Panna Lal against the judgement and order dated

27.06.2018 passed by Mr. Kumar Prashant, Additional District Judge / Family Court / FTC-2, Gorakhpur, whereby the petition for maintenance filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 561 of 2009 (Smt. Premlata vs. Panney Lal) has been allowed and the opposite party has been directed to pay Rs.4,000/- per month, as maintenance allowance to the applicant from the date of order on every 10th day of the month.

3. Since, the present revision has been filed in the year, 2018 but none appeared to press the revision on behalf of the revisionist in revised call and the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 Smt. Premlata has insisted towards the disposal of the 2 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2018. present criminal revision. Therefore, the present criminal revision is being heard and decided on merits.

4. The brief fact of the case, on the basis of application filed by the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C, is that on 04.06.1991, the revisionist and the opposite party no. 2 got married as per Hindu rites and rituals and were living as legally wedded husband and wife. During marriage ceremony, all necessary things were given by the father of the applicant but due to some differences regarding dowry she was harassed and beaten. On 15.05.2009, when opposite party No. 2, (Smt. Premlata), was forced to leave her in-laws' house, then she lodged a complaint to the police on

03.07.2009 and the matter was registered as Case Crime No. 694 of 2009 under Sections 498-A, 323, and 316 I.P.C. after which the revisionist was released on bail. In her petition, opposite party No. 2 has further stated that she had no source of income, whereas the revisionist had business and agricultural land. On the basis of the above, she claimed a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance allowance.

5. On the above petition, the revisionist/opposite party filed a reply (Paper 12 Ka), wherein he had admitted the marriage between them and lived as legally wedded husband and wife. He has further stated that after two years of their marriage, they got separated as per the traditions prevailing in their society. Thereafter, opposite party Smt. Premlata got married with one Abbas and started living with him as husband and wife. It was also stated in the reply that Abbas had purchased a land in the name of opposite party (Smt. Premlata) on 26.11.2010. In the aforesaid reply, he has also stated that Smt. Premlata is an Anganwadi worker and is earning a monthly salary of 1,700/-. Åⅲ On the basis of the above, the revisionist had prayed for the rejection of the application for maintenance filed by opposite party (Smt. Premlata). 3 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2018.

6. In the case before the court below, the opposite party – Smt. Premlata has been examined as P.W-1 whereas revisionist was examined as O.P.W.-1. Thereafter, other relevant documents were submitted from both the sides.

7. The learned court below after hearing both the parties and perusing the records placed before it, allowed the petition filed by opposite party (Smt. Premlata) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded the maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month, to be paid to the opposite party no. 2 by the revisionist by 10th day of each month. The maintenance was to be paid from the date of the order, i.e. (27.06.2018).

8. Based on the aforesaid facts, the present revision was filed by the revisionist Panna Lal on the grounds that the learned court below has failed to appreciate the material available on record with regard to the income of the revisionist (Husband). The learned court below has refused to accept the income of Rs.1,700/- of opposite party no. 2 as Anganwari Sahaika. The impugned order has further been assailed on the ground that the learned court below had ignored to accept the fact that the opposite party no. 2 (wife) had re-married with one Abbas Ali, who has purchased a plot in the name of opposite party no. 2 (Smt. Premlata) vide registered sale deed dated 26.11.2010. In this light, the present revision has been filed with the prayer to set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 27.06.2018 passed by Additional District Judge / Family Court / F.T.C., Gorakhpur whereby maintenance of Rs.4,000/- has been allowed to be paid to the opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 561 of 2009 (Smt. Premlata vs. Panna Lal) from the date of the order.

9. In the instant revision by means of supplementary affidavit, certified copy of the judgement of Additional Session Judge / F.T.C. Court no. 1, Gorakhpur dated 30.10.2021 in S.T. No. 244 of 2016 (State of U.P. vs. Panney Lal) has also been filed in which 4 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2018. the present revisionist i.e. Panney Lal has been acquitted against the charges under Sections 498-A, 323 and 316 I.P.C. In the said supplementary affidavit, an information dated 21.08.2023 provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has also been filed which speaks about the payment of Rs.2,750/- per month to Smt. Premlata as honorarium.

10. Thereafter, in the present revision, a short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Smt. Premlata (opposite party no. 2) stating therein that this Court vide order dated 23.08.2018 has referred the matter to the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre for reconciliation between the revisionist and the opposite party no. 2 but the said mediation has failed on

13.02.2018. On 23.08.2018 this Court passed the following order : “The matter is regarding a matrimonial dispute arising out of proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Additional District Judge/ Family Court & Fast Track Court II, Gorakhpur vide order dated 27.06.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.561 of 2009 has awarded Rs.4000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of order. The revisionist is husband and opposite party no. 2 is wife. Without going into the merits of the revisionist's case at this stage, since the matter is a matrimonial dispute between revisionist and opposite party no.2, who are husband and wife, it is desirable that the parties be required to attempt a re- conciliation of their differences with the assistance of the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. It is directed that revisionist shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within three weeks from today with the Mediation Centre of which Rs. 7,000/- would be paid to the opposite party no. 2 for appearance before the Mediation Centre. Upon deposit aforesaid being made good, the Mediation Centre will issue notice to both the parties fixing an early date for appearance and further proceedings before the Centre. The Mediation Centre will submit their report within two months from the date parties are required to first appear before the Centre. Thereafter the case shall be listed before appropriate Bench. 5 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2018. In the meanwhile, in case the revisionist deposits a sum of Rs.3000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 with the Additional District Judge/ Family Court & Fast Track Court II, Gorakhpur by the 10th of each succeeding month with effect from the date of order commencing 10th September, 2018, operation of the impugned order dated 27.06.2018 passed in Criminal Case No.561 of 2009 passed by the Additional District Judge/ Family Court & Fast Track Court II, Gorakhpur, shall remain stayed. The Family Court upon periodical deposit of maintenance made pursuant to this order by the applicant shall immediately release the same in favour of opposite party no.2 without asking for any security. In case of default in adherence to the aforesaid schedule of deposit or in making good the requisites in the account of the Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the interim order granted above shall automatically stand vacated.”

11. During the course of argument, it is said that the revisionist has not complied with the order of this Court dated 23.08.2018 to the effect to deposit Rs.3000/- per month to the opposite party no.

2. The opposite party no. 2 is standing at the verge of starvation. The revisionist has no interest in deciding the revision and he is also not complying the order dated 23.08.2018 of this Court.

12. Heard learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

13. As the matter relates to the matrimonial dispute between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2, who are husband and wife and the maintenance granted arising out of the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which the revisionist is not coming and is also said to be not complying the order of this court dated

23.08.2018, by means of which he has been asked to deposit a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month by the 10th day of each month with effect from the date of order. With the aforesaid direction, the impugned order dated 27.06.2018 was kept in abeyance. It has been further observed in the aforesaid order that in case of default 6 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2018. in adherence to the aforesaid schedule of deposit, the interim order granted above shall automatically stand vacated.

14. In these circumstances, feeling the necessity emerged by the order of this Court dated 23.08.2018 and arguments advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, the instant revision is being decided on merits, is absence of revisionist.

15. In this context, it seems necessary to reproduce the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. :- “125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. (1) refuses to maintain - If any person having sufficient means neglects or (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether (b) married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct.”

16. At the first instance, keeping in view the aforesaid legal provision and facts placed, it is undisputed that the revisionist and the opposite party no. 2 are legally wedded husband and wife, and further the perusal of the record transpires that the parties were not having cordial relations between them due to which the opposite party no. 2 had filed a case against the revisionist on

03.07.2009 as Case Crime No. 694 of 2009, under Sections 498- A, 323 and 316 I.P.C. The opposite party no. 2 has also stated before the court below that she was being harassed by her in- laws in demand of dowry, therefore, she started staying with her parents. The revisionist appeared before the court below and had 7 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2787 of 2018. admitted the marriage between them and also having three children out of their lawful wedlock.

17. Learned court below, after evaluating all the evidences produced by both the parties has come to the conclusion that the applicant / opposite party no. 2 is earning Rs.800/- per month as Anganwadi worker which is not sufficient to maintain herself at the present time. It is the legal and social obligation of the revisionist to maintain his wife. On the basis of above, the learned court below has granted Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no. 2. On the point of entitlement of maintenance to earning wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C., it has been categorically held in the case of Chaturbhuj vs. Sitabhai AIR 2008 SC 530 and Suneeta Kachhwah vs. Anil Kachhwah, AIR 2015 SC 554 that merely because the wife was earning something, it would not be a ground to reject her claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

18. Thus, in the light of observation made hereinabove and keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Chaturbhuj vs. Sitabhai and Suneeta Kachhwah vs. Anil Kachhwah (supra), the impugned order dated 27.06.2018 passed by Additional District Judge / Family Court / F.T.C.-2, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 561 of 2009 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt. Premlata vs. Panney Lal) is just and reasonable and therefore, no interference is warranted by means of the present revision.

19. Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed. The order dated 27.06.2018 passed by Additional District Judge / Family Court / F.T.C.-2, Gorakhpur is hereby confirmed.

20. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (Tej Pratap Tiwari, J.) Spetember 26, 2025 Manoj MANOJ KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad