Vandana Devi v. Jitendra Kumar) under Section

1. Heard Mr. Subhash Sachan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Ram Bilas Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order dated 31st May, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj in Case No. 197 of 2019 (Vandana Devi Vs. Jitendra Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Maharajganj, whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for monthly maintenance allowance has been rejected.

3. It is the case of the revisionist that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 18th April, 2018 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Rituals, which was arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, as per their capacity, certain gifts were given by the parents of the revisionist to opposite party no.2. Just after marriage, opposite party no.2 and his family members started demanding of a four wheeler car as additional demand of dowry. When the opposite party no.2 and his family members started torturing and harassing the revisionist she left her matrimonial house just after 23 days of her marriage and resided to her parental house. In June, 2018 she returned to her in-laws' place and when opposite party no.2 and his family members again started beating and harassing the revisionist she called her brother and went to her paternal place on 22nd September, 2018 along with him. After that the revisionist filed a case under the provisions of Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act, 2005 but looking to her future, she withdrew the said case. When in a meeting fixed for compromise between the husband and wife, the dispute was not resolved, the revisionist filed instant Maintenance Case No. 197 of 2019 against opposite party no.2 on 19th March, 2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. After oral as well as documentary evidence were led, the trial court has passed the impugned judgment. Hence the present criminal revision. 2 CRLR No. 4383 of 2024

4. In support of his case, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court has not considered the evidence led by the revisionist on the issue of her source of income in correct perspective while passing the impugned judgment. He further submits that the fact that opposite party no.2 was doing job in Caltech Company and getting Rs. 60,000/- per month and was fully capable to maintain her wife i.e. the revisionist has also not been considered by the trial court while rejecting the claim of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submits that though after marriage opposite party no.2 and his family members were used to torture, beating and harassing the revisionist for non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry, she left her matrimonial house and is living separately from her husband. The trial court while deciding the maintenance petition of the revisionist has wrongly accepted the ex-parte order dated 3rd April, 2021 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which the revisionist had not contested the same.

5. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the trial court has dismissed the maintenance case filed by the revisionist without considering the contents of the maintenance petition, evidence available on record, which cannot been sustained in eyes of law, the same is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other-hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the maintenance petition of the revisionist.

7. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the revisionist has failed to establish the reason as to why she is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 before the trial court. The ground that since the revisionist was subjected to torture, harassment, beating due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry by opposite party no.2 and his family members, she is living separately has not been proved on behalf of the revisionist before the trial court through documentary as well as oral evidence. It is next submitted that the revisionist has also not been able to question the identity card of the revisionist by which she enrolled as an Advocate by the U.P. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in the year 2017, a photo copy of the identity card has also been produced before the trial court.

8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has again submitted that for showing his bona fide, opposite party no.2 has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Gorakhpur in which notices were issued to the revisionist and revisionist had not responded, due to which the Family Court had passed ex-parte order dated 3rd April, 2021 and after being fully aware of the same, the revisionist has not complied with the said ex-parte order.

9. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the revisionist is living separately without any reason and also she is a practicing lawyer and fully capable to maintain herself, she is not entitled to 3 CRLR No. 4383 of 2024 any maintenance allowance from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2. The trial court has rightly dismissed the maintenance petition filed by the revisionist. As such, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records the present criminal revision specifically the judgment impugned.

11. On deeper scrutiny of the impugned judgment passed by the trial court dismissing the maintenance petition filed by the revisionist, this Court is full in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court.

12. It is undisputed fact between the parties that the revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2. the oral as well as documentary evidence

13. While deciding the issue no.2 that the revisionist is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 with sufficient reason, the trial court after considering statements of the prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses, has opined that the revisionist had left her matrimonial house and is living separately from her husband at her parental house without any reason. Even though the copies of the compromise signed by both the parties including the revisionist, her mother and brother has been filed by opposite party no.2 as Paper No. 55Kha, wherein the revisionist herself has stated that she was leaving her matrimonial house from her own wish. Besides the above, the trial court has also considered the ex-parte order passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and observed that after being aware of the said order, the revisionist has turned up to return back to her matrimonial house. including

14. Now this Court comes on the finding recorded by the trial court while deciding the issue no.3 that whether the revisionist is capable to maintain herself and the opposite party no. 2 is deliberately not supporting the revisionist despite having sufficient source of income? Although the revisionist in paragraph no. 7 of her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has stated that the revisionist has no source of income and her father has died. The brother of the revisionist somehow supports his family by doing labour work and her parents are not able to support her. However, the trial court on the basis of evidence led during the course of trial has come to the conclusion that the revisionist is enrolled as an Advocate since 31st December, 2017 and she earns money from practicing as lawyer for the past seven years. The revisionist has filed her affidavit being paper no.14Kha but in the same she has not disclosed about her income. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the trial court has come to the conclusion that she has completely failed to establish that she is not capable to maintain herself. The trial court has also opined that since there is no evidence available on record that the revisionist is not able to maintain herself and despite having sufficient income, opposite party no.2 is deliberately not maintaining the revisionist.

15. On perusal of the aforesaid findings returned by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the trial court has 4 CRLR No. 4383 of 2024 recorded categorical finding of facts.This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court.

16. Since this Court sits in a revisional jurisdiction, it cannot embark upon a re- appreciation of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The evidence led before the trial court has been dealt with by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot substitute its own finding while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.

17. Consequently, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

18. There shall be no order as to costs. August 27, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Subhash Sachan, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. Ram Bilas Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. questioning the judgment and order dated 31st May, 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Maharajganj in Case No. 197 of 2019 (Vandana Devi Vs. Jitendra Kumar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Maharajganj, whereby the application filed by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for monthly maintenance allowance has been rejected.

3. It is the case of the revisionist that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no.2 on 18th April, 2018 in accordance with the Hindu Rites and Rituals, which was arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, as per their capacity, certain gifts were given by the parents of the revisionist to opposite party no.2. Just after marriage, opposite party no.2 and his family members started demanding of a four wheeler car as additional demand of dowry. When the opposite party no.2 and his family members started torturing and harassing the revisionist she left her matrimonial house just after 23 days of her marriage and resided to her parental house. In June, 2018 she returned to her in-laws' place and when opposite party no.2 and his family members again started beating and harassing the revisionist she called her brother and went to her paternal place on 22nd September, 2018 along with him. After that the revisionist filed a case under the provisions of Protection of Women for Domestic Violence Act, 2005 but looking to her future, she withdrew the said case. When in a meeting fixed for compromise between the husband and wife, the dispute was not resolved, the revisionist filed instant Maintenance Case No. 197 of 2019 against opposite party no.2 on 19th March, 2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. After oral as well as documentary evidence were led, the trial court has passed the impugned judgment. Hence the present criminal revision. 2 CRLR No. 4383 of 2024

4. In support of his case, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the trial court has not considered the evidence led by the revisionist on the issue of her source of income in correct perspective while passing the impugned judgment. He further submits that the fact that opposite party no.2 was doing job in Caltech Company and getting Rs. 60,000/- per month and was fully capable to maintain her wife i.e. the revisionist has also not been considered by the trial court while rejecting the claim of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist next submits that though after marriage opposite party no.2 and his family members were used to torture, beating and harassing the revisionist for non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry, she left her matrimonial house and is living separately from her husband. The trial court while deciding the maintenance petition of the revisionist has wrongly accepted the ex-parte order dated 3rd April, 2021 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which the revisionist had not contested the same.

5. On the above premise, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that since the trial court has dismissed the maintenance case filed by the revisionist without considering the contents of the maintenance petition, evidence available on record, which cannot been sustained in eyes of law, the same is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other-hand, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. for the State have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revisionist by submitting that the trial court has not committed any illegality in dismissing the maintenance petition of the revisionist.

7. Besides the above, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that the revisionist has failed to establish the reason as to why she is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 before the trial court. The ground that since the revisionist was subjected to torture, harassment, beating due to non-fulfillment of additional demand of dowry by opposite party no.2 and his family members, she is living separately has not been proved on behalf of the revisionist before the trial court through documentary as well as oral evidence. It is next submitted that the revisionist has also not been able to question the identity card of the revisionist by which she enrolled as an Advocate by the U.P. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in the year 2017, a photo copy of the identity card has also been produced before the trial court.

8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has again submitted that for showing his bona fide, opposite party no.2 has filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Gorakhpur in which notices were issued to the revisionist and revisionist had not responded, due to which the Family Court had passed ex-parte order dated 3rd April, 2021 and after being fully aware of the same, the revisionist has not complied with the said ex-parte order.

9. On the above premise, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that since the revisionist is living separately without any reason and also she is a practicing lawyer and fully capable to maintain herself, she is not entitled to 3 CRLR No. 4383 of 2024 any maintenance allowance from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2. The trial court has rightly dismissed the maintenance petition filed by the revisionist. As such, the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records the present criminal revision specifically the judgment impugned.

11. On deeper scrutiny of the impugned judgment passed by the trial court dismissing the maintenance petition filed by the revisionist, this Court is full in agreement with the findings recorded by the trial court.

12. It is undisputed fact between the parties that the revisionist is legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2. the oral as well as documentary evidence

13. While deciding the issue no.2 that the revisionist is living separately from her husband i.e. opposite party no.2 with sufficient reason, the trial court after considering statements of the prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses, has opined that the revisionist had left her matrimonial house and is living separately from her husband at her parental house without any reason. Even though the copies of the compromise signed by both the parties including the revisionist, her mother and brother has been filed by opposite party no.2 as Paper No. 55Kha, wherein the revisionist herself has stated that she was leaving her matrimonial house from her own wish. Besides the above, the trial court has also considered the ex-parte order passed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and observed that after being aware of the said order, the revisionist has turned up to return back to her matrimonial house. including

14. Now this Court comes on the finding recorded by the trial court while deciding the issue no.3 that whether the revisionist is capable to maintain herself and the opposite party no. 2 is deliberately not supporting the revisionist despite having sufficient source of income? Although the revisionist in paragraph no. 7 of her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has stated that the revisionist has no source of income and her father has died. The brother of the revisionist somehow supports his family by doing labour work and her parents are not able to support her. However, the trial court on the basis of evidence led during the course of trial has come to the conclusion that the revisionist is enrolled as an Advocate since 31st December, 2017 and she earns money from practicing as lawyer for the past seven years. The revisionist has filed her affidavit being paper no.14Kha but in the same she has not disclosed about her income. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the trial court has come to the conclusion that she has completely failed to establish that she is not capable to maintain herself. The trial court has also opined that since there is no evidence available on record that the revisionist is not able to maintain herself and despite having sufficient income, opposite party no.2 is deliberately not maintaining the revisionist.

15. On perusal of the aforesaid findings returned by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment, this Court finds that the trial court has 4 CRLR No. 4383 of 2024 recorded categorical finding of facts.This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial court.

16. Since this Court sits in a revisional jurisdiction, it cannot embark upon a re- appreciation of evidence as suggested by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The evidence led before the trial court has been dealt with by the trial court while passing the impugned judgment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this Court cannot substitute its own finding while exercising its powers under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.

17. Consequently, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

18. There shall be no order as to costs. August 27, 2025 Sushil/- (Madan Pal Singh,J.) SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad