Criminal Case No. 2943 of 2014 · High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 88 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4515 of 2019 Revisionist :- Munendra Rai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 despite service of notice. 2. The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 1 Mau in Criminal Case No. 2943 of 2014, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., police station Kopaganj, district Mau, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 from the date of order.
Legal Reasoning
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that
Decision
the impugned order is against the facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. The marriage of revisionist with opposite party No. 2 has taken place in the year 2013 but the allegations that she was harassed by revisionist and his family members, are thoroughly false. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the opposite party No. 2 is not ready to live with the revisionist and she is residing separately from her husband without just cause and reason and thus she is not entitled for any maintenance. In this connection, it was also pointed out that the revisionist has filed a case under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights but the opposite party No. 2 is not ready to reside with the revisionist. Further, the opposite party No. 2 is a qualified nurse and she has sufficient source of income to maintain herself. Learned counsel submitted that the court below has not considered facts and evidence of the matter in correct perspective and committed error by awarding maintenance to the opposite party No. 2 and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and argued that perusal of impugned order shows that there is no illegality, perversity and error in the impugned order. It was submitted that opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. 5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 6. Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. As per section 125 of Cr. P. C. if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor children, whether married or not, and his father or mother unable to maintain themselves, the Magistrate First Class upon proof of such refusal or neglect direct such person to make monthly allowances and to pay the same to such persons from time to time. It is well established that object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who is not able to maintain herself. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. Maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty. It is awarded to her so that she can survive. The fact that time is spent between the date of the application and a final adjudication and an award in favour of the wife, does not mean that she had enough funds to maintain herself. The provisions of maintenance of wives and children intend to serve a social purpose [see Jagir Kaur & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh [AIR 1963 SC 1521]. In Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors [1969 (3) SCC 802, the Supreme Court, discussing Section 488 of the old Cr.P.C, held that Section 488 provides a summary remedy and is applicable to all persons belonging to any religion and has no relationship with the personal law of the parties. In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal and Ors. [AIR 1978 SC 1807], the Court held that Section 125 is a reincarnation of Section 488 of the Cr.P.C. of 1898 except for the fact that parents have also been brought into the category of persons entitled for maintenance. It was observed that this provision is a measure of social justice specially enacted to protect, and inhibit neglect of women, children, old and infirm and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. Again in Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) [(1991) 2 SCC 375, a three- Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 125 of the Code of 1973 is meant to achieve a social purpose and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution. It was held the provision provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. 7. From above-stated case laws, it is quite clear that Section 125 Cr. P.C is a measure of social legislation and it is to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and children. 8. In the instant case, perusal of record shows that it is not disputed that opposite party no. 2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and their marriage has taken place in the year 2013. After considering the averments and evidence of the parties, the court below has rendered finding that opposite party no. 2 has been subjected to cruelty and that she has just and sufficient cause to live separately from her husband and that revisionist has neglected to maintain her. In her statement before the court below, opposite party no. 2 has supported the version that she was harassed on account of dowry and that revisionist and his family members used to demand dowry from her and that she has no source of income to maintain herself. Though in his statement before the court below, the revisionist has denied the allegations made by opposite party no. 2, but the court below has considered and examined evidence of both the parties and rendered finding that the revisionist has neglected her maintenance and she has no source of income to maintain herself. Merely because the opposite party no. 2 has done course in nursing, it cannot be presumed that she is doing any job. The court has discussed evidence of both the parties in correct perspective and also considered the source of income of revisionist. After considering all aspects of the matter, the court below has awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the date of order, which cannot be said excessive or arbitrary. 9. At this juncture it may be stated that object of section 397 CrPC is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. The revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deepak [Criminal Appeal No. 485 of 2019] decided on 13.03.2019. 10. Considering the material on record, it is clear that learned Trial Court has considered the material on record in correct prospective and there is no illegality or error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. 11. The criminal revision lacks merit and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Order Date :- 17.1.2023 Suraj/Anand Digitally signed by :- ANAND VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad