High Court · 2025

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 11.7.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, family court, court no. 3, Bulandshahar in maintenance case no. 419 of 2018 (Smt. Pooja vs. Manoj Kumar) under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant Smt. Pooja from the date of filing of application dated 2.8.2018. It is also directed therein that arrears shall be paid from the date of filing of application to the date of judgement in four equal quarterly installment within a year; the maintenance will be payable in first week of each month; any amount obtained by the applicant from opposite party in any other legal proceeding will be liable to be adjustment; if the applicant has obtained any interim maintenance in present case that would also be adjusted in the final order. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with respondent no. 2 on 1.7.2017; the revisionist is a casual labourer. He was earlier engaged in some private job but he had to leave the job due to matrimonial dispute and litigation between the revisionist and respondent no. 2. At present he is residing at his parental place. Learned court below has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent no. 2 from the date of filing of application in the year 2018 without considering pleadings of the parties and evidence on record in proper perspective. He next submitted that matrimonial relationship between the parties got strained due to non co-operating and harsh attitude of respondent no. 2. She has leveled false allegations against him in present case. The respondent no. 2 is not entitled to receive any maintenance as she had herself left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause. She has admitted in her cross examination that she is residing at her parental place properly and she is not willing to re-unite with her husband. Her brother-in-law (Jeth) Raj Kumar had left her at her parental place after two days of the Panchayat, which was convened at Surajawali. In cross examination dated 24.11.2022 she has categorically stated that her in-laws came to take her back at their place at several times but she did not go there. Evidence of PW-1 Pooja is full of contradiction; she failed to perform her matrimonial obligation; revisionist belongs to labour class and he works in a company to earn his livelihood; his monthly earning is hardly Rs. 8,000/-; he has to maintain his old parents also, who are under dependent upon him; respondent no. 2 is residing at her parental place since 18.4.2018; the attitude of respondent no. 2 and her family changed in course of time towards revisionist; the revisionist works in private company and earns his livelihood with difficulty; he sometime becomes jobless also. With above submissions, learned counsel concluded that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the respondent no. 2 was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to high-handedness and practice of matrimonial cruelty against her by her husband. There is ample evidence on record in support of the fact from which it cannot be inferred that the respondent no. 2 left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause. Infact, she was compelled to reside at her parental place as she was left with no option but to shift to her parental place due to non supply of necessary means for her subsistence by her husband. The amount awarded in the impugned order is just and reasonable and the impugned order needs no interference. From perusal of record it appears that the original applicant- Pooja, who is respondent no. 2 in present revision filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the court below on 2.8.2018 with averment that her marriage with opposite party was solemnized on 1.7.2017 according to Hindu rites and rituals; her father spent around Rs. ten lakhs in the marriage, out of which, Rs. 05 lakhs cash was received by opposite party and his parents prior to performance of coin rituals as father of opposite party has stated that he will take only silver coin at the time of coin rituals; father of applicant had gifted three gold four silver items and cloth to the applicant and one gold two silver items to his father and one silver items to his sister and sister-in-law, however, opposite party was not satisfied with the dowry and gift given by the applicant side in the marriage, he started demanding Maruti car after the marriage and applicant was subjected to torture and harassment due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry; Panchayat was convened twice on 6.3.2018 in the village of opposite party and on 11.3.2018 at the parental place of applicant wherein it was decided that the opposite party will return entire expenses incurred in the marriage together with Rs. 02 lakh additional money and thus opposite party will pay Rs. 12 lakhs to the applicant side; a memorandum was also signed by the parties before the Panchayat; on 12.3.2018 brother and sister-in-law of the opposite party visited the applicant's village Sikari and assured her that they will try to make his brother and father understand; on 18.3.2018 father of opposite party, his brother Rajkumar and other visited the village of the applicant and took her with them on assurance of fair treatment but again she was subjected to Marpeet due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry by the opposite party, his parents, his brother Komal and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Mantesh; she was eventually thrown out from her matrimonial home on 18.4.2018 in wearing clothes; the opposite party and his family grabbed her stridhan; the opposite party works in Kohnoor company in Noida and he also earns money from selling milk of two buffaloes and from both sources, his monthly earning is around Rs. 25,000/- per month. Learned court below after considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties gave finding that the applicant Pooja is legally wedded wife of Manoj; her marriage was solemnized with opposite party on 1.7.2017; Panchayat took place to reconcile dispute between the parties twice on 6.3.2018 at village Suratpur and again on 18.3.2018 at the place of applicant i.e. village Sikari but matter could not be resolved; learned court below placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Savitri Pandey vs. Judge Family court, Allahabad, 2004 Cr.L.J. 3934 (All), Punita and another vs. Ravi @ Shamsher Singh decided on 1.12.2013, Chadra Prakash Bodhraj vs. Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174, Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan, AIR 2015 SC 2025, Bhagwan Dutt vs. Kamla Devi, 1975 SCC (2) 386, Chaturbhuj vs. Sitabai (2008) 2 SCC 316, Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and others, (2015) 6 SCC 353, Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636. Learned court below has also considered certain statements of the revisionist and respondent no. 2 which are pointed out by the parties in support of their respective case. Learned court below has concluded that in view of foregoing discussions it is obvious that the applicant was residing separately at her parental place having been subjected physical and mental cruelty by the opposite party and his family members due to non fulfillment of demand of additional dowry. Much emphasis has been laid towards the contradiction which occurred in sworn testimony of applicant Smt. Pooja as PW-1 and her pleading in application under section 125 Cr.P.C.; the applicant has stated in application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. that on 18.4.2018 opposite party had thrown her out from his home in wearing apparel after abusing and beating her due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry and threatened her that if she came back without Maruti car she would be killed; she has stated in her cross examination that she is living separately at her parental place since 18.4.2018; she cooks food and works at her parental place; she has studied up to class- 12; her husband works in export company but she is not aware of his salary; her husband lives with his Bhabhi (Mantesh) and for that reason she is not ready to reunite with him; she will not go with him even if he says that he will leave companionship of Mantesh because he used to tell lie; she has stated in cross examination that on 24.11.2022 her in-laws came to take her back but she did not go with them; she came to her parental place after two days of Panchayat which took place at Surjawali; Panchayat at Surajawali was convened on 6.3.2018; she came to her parental place and back to place of her in-laws twice or thrice after her marriage; she has stated that elder brother of her husband Rajkumar left her at her parental place by motorcycle happily and his brother also accompanied her in the journey thereafter he never came back to the place of her in-laws. But above statement has been given in continuation of her statement that she came back to her parental place after two days of Panchayat which took place at Surajawali and Panchayat at Surajawali stated to have held on 6.3.2018 by the witnesses thus only due to contradiction in he pleading and evidence it cannot be discerned that she has been residing separately from her husband without sufficient cause; she has divulged two reasons for separate living (i) the demand of additional dowry and her being subjected to matrimonial cruelty due to its non fulfillment (ii) suspected illicit relationship of her husband with his sister-in-law (bhabhi) which is also mentioned in memorandum of understanding signed by the parties. The amount awarded in the impugned order is reasonable and on lower side keeping in view the fact that the revisionist is working in a private company in Noida and he has not denied the fact that his monthly earning is around Rs. 25,000/- from all sources. Consequently, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below; the revision is devoid of force and is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed, accordingly. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 11.7.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, family court, court no. 3, Bulandshahar in maintenance case no. 419 of 2018 (Smt. Pooja vs. Manoj Kumar) under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to the applicant Smt. Pooja from the date of filing of application dated 2.8.2018. It is also directed therein that arrears shall be paid from the date of filing of application to the date of judgement in four equal quarterly installment within a year; the maintenance will be payable in first week of each month; any amount obtained by the applicant from opposite party in any other legal proceeding will be liable to be adjustment; if the applicant has obtained any interim maintenance in present case that would also be adjusted in the final order. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with respondent no. 2 on 1.7.2017; the revisionist is a casual labourer. He was earlier engaged in some private job but he had to leave the job due to matrimonial dispute and litigation between the revisionist and respondent no. 2. At present he is residing at his parental place. Learned court below has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the respondent no. 2 from the date of filing of application in the year 2018 without considering pleadings of the parties and evidence on record in proper perspective. He next submitted that matrimonial relationship between the parties got strained due to non co-operating and harsh attitude of respondent no. 2. She has leveled false allegations against him in present case. The respondent no. 2 is not entitled to receive any maintenance as she had herself left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause. She has admitted in her cross examination that she is residing at her parental place properly and she is not willing to re-unite with her husband. Her brother-in-law (Jeth) Raj Kumar had left her at her parental place after two days of the Panchayat, which was convened at Surajawali. In cross examination dated 24.11.2022 she has categorically stated that her in-laws came to take her back at their place at several times but she did not go there. Evidence of PW-1 Pooja is full of contradiction; she failed to perform her matrimonial obligation; revisionist belongs to labour class and he works in a company to earn his livelihood; his monthly earning is hardly Rs. 8,000/-; he has to maintain his old parents also, who are under dependent upon him; respondent no. 2 is residing at her parental place since 18.4.2018; the attitude of respondent no. 2 and her family changed in course of time towards revisionist; the revisionist works in private company and earns his livelihood with difficulty; he sometime becomes jobless also. With above submissions, learned counsel concluded that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the respondent no. 2 was compelled to leave her matrimonial home due to high-handedness and practice of matrimonial cruelty against her by her husband. There is ample evidence on record in support of the fact from which it cannot be inferred that the respondent no. 2 left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause. Infact, she was compelled to reside at her parental place as she was left with no option but to shift to her parental place due to non supply of necessary means for her subsistence by her husband. The amount awarded in the impugned order is just and reasonable and the impugned order needs no interference. From perusal of record it appears that the original applicant- Pooja, who is respondent no. 2 in present revision filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the court below on 2.8.2018 with averment that her marriage with opposite party was solemnized on 1.7.2017 according to Hindu rites and rituals; her father spent around Rs. ten lakhs in the marriage, out of which, Rs. 05 lakhs cash was received by opposite party and his parents prior to performance of coin rituals as father of opposite party has stated that he will take only silver coin at the time of coin rituals; father of applicant had gifted three gold four silver items and cloth to the applicant and one gold two silver items to his father and one silver items to his sister and sister-in-law, however, opposite party was not satisfied with the dowry and gift given by the applicant side in the marriage, he started demanding Maruti car after the marriage and applicant was subjected to torture and harassment due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry; Panchayat was convened twice on 6.3.2018 in the village of opposite party and on 11.3.2018 at the parental place of applicant wherein it was decided that the opposite party will return entire expenses incurred in the marriage together with Rs. 02 lakh additional money and thus opposite party will pay Rs. 12 lakhs to the applicant side; a memorandum was also signed by the parties before the Panchayat; on 12.3.2018 brother and sister-in-law of the opposite party visited the applicant's village Sikari and assured her that they will try to make his brother and father understand; on 18.3.2018 father of opposite party, his brother Rajkumar and other visited the village of the applicant and took her with them on assurance of fair treatment but again she was subjected to Marpeet due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry by the opposite party, his parents, his brother Komal and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Mantesh; she was eventually thrown out from her matrimonial home on 18.4.2018 in wearing clothes; the opposite party and his family grabbed her stridhan; the opposite party works in Kohnoor company in Noida and he also earns money from selling milk of two buffaloes and from both sources, his monthly earning is around Rs. 25,000/- per month. Learned court below after considering the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties gave finding that the applicant Pooja is legally wedded wife of Manoj; her marriage was solemnized with opposite party on 1.7.2017; Panchayat took place to reconcile dispute between the parties twice on 6.3.2018 at village Suratpur and again on 18.3.2018 at the place of applicant i.e. village Sikari but matter could not be resolved; learned court below placed reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Savitri Pandey vs. Judge Family court, Allahabad, 2004 Cr.L.J. 3934 (All), Punita and another vs. Ravi @ Shamsher Singh decided on 1.12.2013, Chadra Prakash Bodhraj vs. Shila Rani Chander Prakash, AIR 1968 Delhi 174, Shamima Farooqui vs. Shahid Khan, AIR 2015 SC 2025, Bhagwan Dutt vs. Kamla Devi, 1975 SCC (2) 386, Chaturbhuj vs. Sitabai (2008) 2 SCC 316, Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs. Meena and others, (2015) 6 SCC 353, Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636. Learned court below has also considered certain statements of the revisionist and respondent no. 2 which are pointed out by the parties in support of their respective case. Learned court below has concluded that in view of foregoing discussions it is obvious that the applicant was residing separately at her parental place having been subjected physical and mental cruelty by the opposite party and his family members due to non fulfillment of demand of additional dowry. Much emphasis has been laid towards the contradiction which occurred in sworn testimony of applicant Smt. Pooja as PW-1 and her pleading in application under section 125 Cr.P.C.; the applicant has stated in application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. that on 18.4.2018 opposite party had thrown her out from his home in wearing apparel after abusing and beating her due to non fulfillment of demand of dowry and threatened her that if she came back without Maruti car she would be killed; she has stated in her cross examination that she is living separately at her parental place since 18.4.2018; she cooks food and works at her parental place; she has studied up to class- 12; her husband works in export company but she is not aware of his salary; her husband lives with his Bhabhi (Mantesh) and for that reason she is not ready to reunite with him; she will not go with him even if he says that he will leave companionship of Mantesh because he used to tell lie; she has stated in cross examination that on 24.11.2022 her in-laws came to take her back but she did not go with them; she came to her parental place after two days of Panchayat which took place at Surjawali; Panchayat at Surajawali was convened on 6.3.2018; she came to her parental place and back to place of her in-laws twice or thrice after her marriage; she has stated that elder brother of her husband Rajkumar left her at her parental place by motorcycle happily and his brother also accompanied her in the journey thereafter he never came back to the place of her in-laws. But above statement has been given in continuation of her statement that she came back to her parental place after two days of Panchayat which took place at Surajawali and Panchayat at Surajawali stated to have held on 6.3.2018 by the witnesses thus only due to contradiction in he pleading and evidence it cannot be discerned that she has been residing separately from her husband without sufficient cause; she has divulged two reasons for separate living (i) the demand of additional dowry and her being subjected to matrimonial cruelty due to its non fulfillment (ii) suspected illicit relationship of her husband with his sister-in-law (bhabhi) which is also mentioned in memorandum of understanding signed by the parties. The amount awarded in the impugned order is reasonable and on lower side keeping in view the fact that the revisionist is working in a private company in Noida and he has not denied the fact that his monthly earning is around Rs. 25,000/- from all sources. Consequently, I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned court below; the revision is devoid of force and is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed, accordingly. Order Date :- 3.1.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad