Sudama and another v. Nanhe Lal) under section

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 3.8.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, family court, Budaun in maintenance case no. 1220 of 2020 (Sudama and another vs. Nanhe Lal) under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby learned court below has awarded Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent no. 2-wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent no. 3-minor son. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with original applicant Sudama on 17.5.2017 according to Hindu rites and rituals; couple was blessed with a son namely Rahul, who is applicant no. 2 before the court below; the relationship between the husband and wife got sour in course of time as the applicant no. 1 is free minded woman; she was having illicit relation with co-villager namely Sanju with whom he found his wife in an objectionable condition on the roof of his house; the revisionist and his mother caught them; when he challenged her paramour he abused and threatened him with life; the revisionist also scolded his wife for her objectionable act to which she got infuriated and informed her parents about the incident; they visited his place instead of doing any action on that; they took his wife alongwith them; his wife took away Rs. 25,000/- cash and ornaments of his mother in his absence; he tried to make his wife understand several time but she did not conceive and instead he filed a false case of maintenance on the ground of dowry harassment. He next submitted that learned court below has awarded Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance to the applicants from the date of filing of application, which is exorbitant and beyond the financial capability of the revisionist. Learned court below has not given any specific finding with regard to income of the revisionist. The respondent no. 2 is living separately from the revisionist since 10.3.2020 i.e. on the next date of incident dated 9.3.2020; the respondent no. 2 has taken false plea in her application under section 125 Cr.P.C. that on 7.3.2020 the revisionist had locked her in the room and stopped her meal and water and anyhow she came out from the room and informed her neighbours and then her father and relatives arrived and took her alongwith them; the respondent no. 2 has wrongly averred in application under section 125 Cr.P.C. that the revisionist is running business of travel agency and earns sufficiently from that business; infact the revisionist is unemployed and does labour work in MGNREGA scheme; he is not having any agricultural land in his name. Learned court below has awarded maintenance to the applicants in cursory manner without applying judicial mind and thus, the impugned judgement and order is liable to be set aside. On perusal of impugned judgement it appears that learned court below has framed three points of determination, which were decided in favour of respondent no. 2. Learned court below has dispelled the contention of revisionist in written statement that the respondent no. 2 is living separately without sufficient cause after considering the evidence adduced by the parties. Learned court below has concluded that the respondent no. 2 thrown out from her matrimonial home after subjecting to matrimonial cruelty, harassment and torture; the respondent no. 2 is residing separately from her husband alongwith minor son due to matrimonial dispute between the parties. Both the parties have leveled serious aspersion against each other. On one hand, the opposite party has stated in his cross examination that he wants to take back his wife and son but on other hand he made serious aspersion on his character, which shows that he is making pleadings and statement before the court below according to his own convenience. Learned court below has also given finding that respondent no. 2 is unable to maintain herself and her minor son and the revisionist has neglected to maintain his wife and son; the revisionist appears to be agriculturist; the applicant has filed extract of Khatauni which reveals that his name is entered therein as land holder. He also concealed this fact in his affidavit of disclosure of asset and liability. However, the applicant has not produced any evidence in support of her version that opposite party is running a tempo and car on rent and earns income therefrom. The revisionist is under moral statutory and social obligation to maintain his wife and minor son and provide them necessities of their life like meal, cloth, medical aid, education and accommodation. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that there is no legal or factual error in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, material available on record and giving thoughtful consideration on the observation given by the court below in the impugned order, I find no substantial factual or legal error in the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned court below; the findings recorded by the court below are not perverse, therefore, it need not to be interfered with in present revision. However, keeping in view the fact that monthly income of the revisionist is not fixed by learned court below in the impugned order thus, amount of maintenance is liable to be reduced looking into the totality of facts and circumstances of the case. It is directed that amount of maintenance awarded to the applicant no. 1, which is a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from the date of filing of application to the date of judgement is reduced to Rs. 3,000/-. The amount awarded to the applicant no. 2 is intact. The amount of future maintenance from the date of judgement onward is also not interfered with. It is further directed that arrears of maintenance as directed in this order from the date of filing of application, will be payable in five equal monthly installment and first installment will be payable on 10th April, 2025 and remaining amount shall be payable in each succeeding month. The revision is disposed of with above modification. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. This criminal revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 3.8.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, family court, Budaun in maintenance case no. 1220 of 2020 (Sudama and another vs. Nanhe Lal) under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby learned court below has awarded Rs. 4,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent no. 2-wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent no. 3-minor son. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with original applicant Sudama on 17.5.2017 according to Hindu rites and rituals; couple was blessed with a son namely Rahul, who is applicant no. 2 before the court below; the relationship between the husband and wife got sour in course of time as the applicant no. 1 is free minded woman; she was having illicit relation with co-villager namely Sanju with whom he found his wife in an objectionable condition on the roof of his house; the revisionist and his mother caught them; when he challenged her paramour he abused and threatened him with life; the revisionist also scolded his wife for her objectionable act to which she got infuriated and informed her parents about the incident; they visited his place instead of doing any action on that; they took his wife alongwith them; his wife took away Rs. 25,000/- cash and ornaments of his mother in his absence; he tried to make his wife understand several time but she did not conceive and instead he filed a false case of maintenance on the ground of dowry harassment. He next submitted that learned court below has awarded Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance to the applicants from the date of filing of application, which is exorbitant and beyond the financial capability of the revisionist. Learned court below has not given any specific finding with regard to income of the revisionist. The respondent no. 2 is living separately from the revisionist since 10.3.2020 i.e. on the next date of incident dated 9.3.2020; the respondent no. 2 has taken false plea in her application under section 125 Cr.P.C. that on 7.3.2020 the revisionist had locked her in the room and stopped her meal and water and anyhow she came out from the room and informed her neighbours and then her father and relatives arrived and took her alongwith them; the respondent no. 2 has wrongly averred in application under section 125 Cr.P.C. that the revisionist is running business of travel agency and earns sufficiently from that business; infact the revisionist is unemployed and does labour work in MGNREGA scheme; he is not having any agricultural land in his name. Learned court below has awarded maintenance to the applicants in cursory manner without applying judicial mind and thus, the impugned judgement and order is liable to be set aside. On perusal of impugned judgement it appears that learned court below has framed three points of determination, which were decided in favour of respondent no. 2. Learned court below has dispelled the contention of revisionist in written statement that the respondent no. 2 is living separately without sufficient cause after considering the evidence adduced by the parties. Learned court below has concluded that the respondent no. 2 thrown out from her matrimonial home after subjecting to matrimonial cruelty, harassment and torture; the respondent no. 2 is residing separately from her husband alongwith minor son due to matrimonial dispute between the parties. Both the parties have leveled serious aspersion against each other. On one hand, the opposite party has stated in his cross examination that he wants to take back his wife and son but on other hand he made serious aspersion on his character, which shows that he is making pleadings and statement before the court below according to his own convenience. Learned court below has also given finding that respondent no. 2 is unable to maintain herself and her minor son and the revisionist has neglected to maintain his wife and son; the revisionist appears to be agriculturist; the applicant has filed extract of Khatauni which reveals that his name is entered therein as land holder. He also concealed this fact in his affidavit of disclosure of asset and liability. However, the applicant has not produced any evidence in support of her version that opposite party is running a tempo and car on rent and earns income therefrom. The revisionist is under moral statutory and social obligation to maintain his wife and minor son and provide them necessities of their life like meal, cloth, medical aid, education and accommodation. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that there is no legal or factual error in the impugned order passed by the learned court below. Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, material available on record and giving thoughtful consideration on the observation given by the court below in the impugned order, I find no substantial factual or legal error in the impugned judgement and order passed by the learned court below; the findings recorded by the court below are not perverse, therefore, it need not to be interfered with in present revision. However, keeping in view the fact that monthly income of the revisionist is not fixed by learned court below in the impugned order thus, amount of maintenance is liable to be reduced looking into the totality of facts and circumstances of the case. It is directed that amount of maintenance awarded to the applicant no. 1, which is a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from the date of filing of application to the date of judgement is reduced to Rs. 3,000/-. The amount awarded to the applicant no. 2 is intact. The amount of future maintenance from the date of judgement onward is also not interfered with. It is further directed that arrears of maintenance as directed in this order from the date of filing of application, will be payable in five equal monthly installment and first installment will be payable on 10th April, 2025 and remaining amount shall be payable in each succeeding month. The revision is disposed of with above modification. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Dhirendra/ DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad