Criminal Case No. 630 of 2017 · High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that this is admitted fact that marriage of the revisionist with respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.02.2015 according to hindu rites and rituals. The couple was blessed with a daughter on 20.11.2015. He works as a Second Officer in Merchant Navy. He next submitted that respondent No.2 is a highly qualified lady and she is a fashion designer, she admitted this fact that prior to marriage she worked as a fashion designer and she has concealed her income. She has not filed affidavit of disclosure of income, assets and liabilities in compliance of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another 2021 (1) JIC 1(SC) before the court below. The revisionist has filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was registered as Misc. Case No.1324 of 2016 and was decided exparte, vide order dated 02.03.2019, wherein decree of restitution of conjugal right was granted to the revisionist against respondent No.2, which is his wife. She is well aware of this exparte judgment and decree of restitution of conjugal right, but never came forward to comply the decree of conjugal rights. He next submitted that revisionist remains in ship for eight months and he gets four months break in a year. The matter was referred to High Court Mediation Centre, pursuant to direction issued by this Court in application under Section 482 No. 24790 of 2024 in Complaint Case lodged at the instance of respondent No.2 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Ghaziabad. However, mediation proceeding is still pending, as revisionist works in the ship and has to visit several countries in connection with his duties as a Merchant Navy Officer, he found it difficult to attend mediation process on every date and this Court had given him a leverage on his request for regarding his appearance before mediation centre, considering his peculiar nature of work. He next submitted that initially interim maintenance was awarded to the applicant at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month respectively which was assailed by the revisionist before this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision No.1772 of 2019, wherein this Court vide order dated 02.05.2019 was pleased to reduce the amount to the tune of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.4,000/- which the revisionist has been paying to the applicants till final disposal of maintenance case. Apart from that revisionist has been paying Rs.20,000/- in cumulative manner to the applicants in proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the learned court below has not considered this fact in the impugned judgment and order. He next submitted that the learned court below has accepted a salary slip of the revisionist filed by respondent No.2, wherein he is shown to have received Rs.4,850 (US dollar) in the year 2023 and on that basis calculated his monthly income as Rs.3,14,000/- by converting the dollar in Indian currency. This finding of court below is purely based on assumption, whereas said salary slip is not proved on record. He next submitted that revisionist had produced some immovable and movable property which are financed by Bank and on that basis a finding has been given that revisionist is living a luxurious life and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to receive maintenance from the revisionist, so that they could live a life upto standard of the revisionist. He next submitted that revisionist had left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause and she visited Australia twice and she has stated in her affidavit evidence before the court below that she is visiting Australia without any pressure from her husband or his family. All the travelling and stay expenses of her daughter and the deponent will be borne by her mother Smt. Anita Tyagi, and for that her husband or his family members are not responsible. The revisionist is still ready to keep his wife and daughter in the flat purchased in Noida, but she is not ready to live with him. The bonafides of the revisionist are clear by the fact that he had filed a Suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the competent court and same was decreed in his favour. He lastly submitted that the amount awarded in the impugned judgment is exorbitant and the leaned court below has not considered this fact that the nature of job of the revisionist is contractual and he doesn't remained employed though out the year and he does not receive salary on monthly basis. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the judgment and order passed by learned court below is based on evidence and material on record. The finding of fact recorded in impugned judgment are reasonable and same need not be disturbed in present criminal revision. He next submitted that learned court below has rightly observed in the impugned judgment and order that the revisionist has filed a sale deed which shows that opposite party has purchased a house in J.P. Greens Town, Gautam Budh Nagar and he has obtained the possession of Flat No.406 situated at Sector 168. This house is valued as amount of Rs.3,50,00,000/- and same is situated in a posh area of Gautam Budh Nagar. Apart from loan he had purchased two Audi Cars bearing Registration No.UP16 CV 3745 and UP16 DR 1600 which itself reveals the higher life style and status of the revisionist. He next submitted that respondent No.2 had left her job of fashion designing after marriage and she is not earning anything at present. Revisionist is a person of sufficient economic means and is able to maintain his wife and daughter. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has categorically denied in her notary affidavit dated 31.03.2016 that she ever visited Australia. Revisionist had levelled false allegation against respondent No.2 that she is suffering from some dangerous disease and he failed to prove this fact during hearing of the maintenance case before the court below. He lastly submitted that the amount awarded in the impugned judgment is just and reasonable and is only 17% of estimated earnings of revisionist and in no manner it can be said to be exorbitant. He next submitted that even if the monthly income of the revisionist is taken as Rs.4,850 (US dollar) according to pay slip of the year 2023, the same will be calculated as Rs.4,21,000/- according to present value of US dollar. He next submitted that respondent No.2 was subjected to matrimonial cruelty, due to non fulfillment of the demand of dowry and this fact has been pleaded and proved by her before the court below. The fact of decree of restitution of conjugal rights was never brought on record by revisionist in proceeding before the court below at any stage, and this plea was not taken by the revisionist before the court below. He is not permitted to raise this plea in present criminal revision. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that the factum of decree of restitution of conjugal rights has been brought on record in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the parents of the revisionist. He lastly submitted that although revisionist had filed his affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha 2021 (1) JIC 1(SC) but he has concealed his income therein and has mentioned the words "income not fixed" in the column of income. Therefore, adverse presumption will be drawn against him on account of concealment of essential facts. This is admitted fact that revisionist is employed in Merchant Navy, but he receives payment in dollar, the officers of Merchant Nave are posted in Merchant Ships and usually they travel in high sea in different parts of the world by traveling by ship and for some months in the year they remained on land, when they are not working in the ship they get a higher amount of salary and a sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded as maintenance to the original applicant, the estranged wife of the revisionist namely Smt. Neha Tyagi and Rs.20,000/- to her minor daughter cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reema Salkan Vs. Sumer Singh Salkan 2019 (12) SCC 303 held that wife and child are entitled to law to lead life in the similar name as they would live in the house of her husband/father. In the present case court below gave a finding on the basis of pleadings made and evidence adduced by the parties that this is admitted fact that applicant Smt. Neha Tyagi is legally wife of applicant Arun Kumar and her daughter Baby Shreya born out of their wedlock. This is also proved on the basis of evidence on record that applicant is residing separately from opposite party for sufficient cause. Opposite party has neglected to maintain his wife and daughter, opposite party has admitted this fact that he is posted as Junior Officer in Merchant Navy, but he has not disclosed his income in affidavit of disclosure of income of assets and liabilities filed in compliance of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another 2021 (2) SCC 324 . He has purchased a valuable property in J.P. Greens Town, Gautam Budh Nagar. He has purchased two audi cars which is highly costly. Therefore, from appreciation of evidence on record it is established that opposite party is a resourceful and affluent person and he has neglected to maintain his wife and daughter and with these findings revisionist has been saddled with responsibility to pay Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance to wife and daughter. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Singh Vs. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353 observed as under:- '2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able- bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.'
84. The respondent's mere plea that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife in presence of good physique along with educational g qualification." (emphasis in original) Considering the rival submissions of the parties, the nature of job and payment, costly life style of the revisionist, the amount paid to the revisionist according to his salary slip by his employer and other attending facts and circumstances of the case, I find no illegality, irregularitty or pervesity in the impugned order passed by the court below, the revision is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. However, it is observed that any amount obtained by the revisionist towards maintenance in proceedings under Section12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act shall be liable to be adjusted in terms of the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Nena and another (supra). Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Ashish/- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that this is admitted fact that marriage of the revisionist with respondent No.2 was solemnized on 25.02.2015 according to hindu rites and rituals. The couple was blessed with a daughter on 20.11.2015. He works as a Second Officer in Merchant Navy. He next submitted that respondent No.2 is a highly qualified lady and she is a fashion designer, she admitted this fact that prior to marriage she worked as a fashion designer and she has concealed her income. She has not filed affidavit of disclosure of income, assets and liabilities in compliance of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another 2021 (1) JIC 1(SC) before the court below. The revisionist has filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which was registered as Misc. Case No.1324 of 2016 and was decided exparte, vide order dated 02.03.2019, wherein decree of restitution of conjugal right was granted to the revisionist against respondent No.2, which is his wife. She is well aware of this exparte judgment and decree of restitution of conjugal right, but never came forward to comply the decree of conjugal rights. He next submitted that revisionist remains in ship for eight months and he gets four months break in a year. The matter was referred to High Court Mediation Centre, pursuant to direction issued by this Court in application under Section 482 No. 24790 of 2024 in Complaint Case lodged at the instance of respondent No.2 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IIIrd, Ghaziabad. However, mediation proceeding is still pending, as revisionist works in the ship and has to visit several countries in connection with his duties as a Merchant Navy Officer, he found it difficult to attend mediation process on every date and this Court had given him a leverage on his request for regarding his appearance before mediation centre, considering his peculiar nature of work. He next submitted that initially interim maintenance was awarded to the applicant at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month respectively which was assailed by the revisionist before this Hon'ble Court in Criminal Revision No.1772 of 2019, wherein this Court vide order dated 02.05.2019 was pleased to reduce the amount to the tune of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.4,000/- which the revisionist has been paying to the applicants till final disposal of maintenance case. Apart from that revisionist has been paying Rs.20,000/- in cumulative manner to the applicants in proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and the learned court below has not considered this fact in the impugned judgment and order. He next submitted that the learned court below has accepted a salary slip of the revisionist filed by respondent No.2, wherein he is shown to have received Rs.4,850 (US dollar) in the year 2023 and on that basis calculated his monthly income as Rs.3,14,000/- by converting the dollar in Indian currency. This finding of court below is purely based on assumption, whereas said salary slip is not proved on record. He next submitted that revisionist had produced some immovable and movable property which are financed by Bank and on that basis a finding has been given that revisionist is living a luxurious life and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to receive maintenance from the revisionist, so that they could live a life upto standard of the revisionist. He next submitted that revisionist had left her matrimonial home without sufficient cause and she visited Australia twice and she has stated in her affidavit evidence before the court below that she is visiting Australia without any pressure from her husband or his family. All the travelling and stay expenses of her daughter and the deponent will be borne by her mother Smt. Anita Tyagi, and for that her husband or his family members are not responsible. The revisionist is still ready to keep his wife and daughter in the flat purchased in Noida, but she is not ready to live with him. The bonafides of the revisionist are clear by the fact that he had filed a Suit for restitution of conjugal rights before the competent court and same was decreed in his favour. He lastly submitted that the amount awarded in the impugned judgment is exorbitant and the leaned court below has not considered this fact that the nature of job of the revisionist is contractual and he doesn't remained employed though out the year and he does not receive salary on monthly basis. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the judgment and order passed by learned court below is based on evidence and material on record. The finding of fact recorded in impugned judgment are reasonable and same need not be disturbed in present criminal revision. He next submitted that learned court below has rightly observed in the impugned judgment and order that the revisionist has filed a sale deed which shows that opposite party has purchased a house in J.P. Greens Town, Gautam Budh Nagar and he has obtained the possession of Flat No.406 situated at Sector 168. This house is valued as amount of Rs.3,50,00,000/- and same is situated in a posh area of Gautam Budh Nagar. Apart from loan he had purchased two Audi Cars bearing Registration No.UP16 CV 3745 and UP16 DR 1600 which itself reveals the higher life style and status of the revisionist. He next submitted that respondent No.2 had left her job of fashion designing after marriage and she is not earning anything at present. Revisionist is a person of sufficient economic means and is able to maintain his wife and daughter. He further submitted that respondent No.2 has categorically denied in her notary affidavit dated 31.03.2016 that she ever visited Australia. Revisionist had levelled false allegation against respondent No.2 that she is suffering from some dangerous disease and he failed to prove this fact during hearing of the maintenance case before the court below. He lastly submitted that the amount awarded in the impugned judgment is just and reasonable and is only 17% of estimated earnings of revisionist and in no manner it can be said to be exorbitant. He next submitted that even if the monthly income of the revisionist is taken as Rs.4,850 (US dollar) according to pay slip of the year 2023, the same will be calculated as Rs.4,21,000/- according to present value of US dollar. He next submitted that respondent No.2 was subjected to matrimonial cruelty, due to non fulfillment of the demand of dowry and this fact has been pleaded and proved by her before the court below. The fact of decree of restitution of conjugal rights was never brought on record by revisionist in proceeding before the court below at any stage, and this plea was not taken by the revisionist before the court below. He is not permitted to raise this plea in present criminal revision. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that the factum of decree of restitution of conjugal rights has been brought on record in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the parents of the revisionist. He lastly submitted that although revisionist had filed his affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in compliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha 2021 (1) JIC 1(SC) but he has concealed his income therein and has mentioned the words "income not fixed" in the column of income. Therefore, adverse presumption will be drawn against him on account of concealment of essential facts. This is admitted fact that revisionist is employed in Merchant Navy, but he receives payment in dollar, the officers of Merchant Nave are posted in Merchant Ships and usually they travel in high sea in different parts of the world by traveling by ship and for some months in the year they remained on land, when they are not working in the ship they get a higher amount of salary and a sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded as maintenance to the original applicant, the estranged wife of the revisionist namely Smt. Neha Tyagi and Rs.20,000/- to her minor daughter cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reema Salkan Vs. Sumer Singh Salkan 2019 (12) SCC 303 held that wife and child are entitled to law to lead life in the similar name as they would live in the house of her husband/father. In the present case court below gave a finding on the basis of pleadings made and evidence adduced by the parties that this is admitted fact that applicant Smt. Neha Tyagi is legally wife of applicant Arun Kumar and her daughter Baby Shreya born out of their wedlock. This is also proved on the basis of evidence on record that applicant is residing separately from opposite party for sufficient cause. Opposite party has neglected to maintain his wife and daughter, opposite party has admitted this fact that he is posted as Junior Officer in Merchant Navy, but he has not disclosed his income in affidavit of disclosure of income of assets and liabilities filed in compliance of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another 2021 (2) SCC 324 . He has purchased a valuable property in J.P. Greens Town, Gautam Budh Nagar. He has purchased two audi cars which is highly costly. Therefore, from appreciation of evidence on record it is established that opposite party is a resourceful and affluent person and he has neglected to maintain his wife and daughter and with these findings revisionist has been saddled with responsibility to pay Rs.30,000/- and Rs.20,000/- per month as maintenance to wife and daughter. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhuwan Singh Vs. Meena (2015) 6 SCC 353 observed as under:- '2. Be it ingeminated that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her. The concept of sustenance does not necessarily mean to lead the life of an animal, feel like an unperson to be thrown away from grace and roam for her basic maintenance somewhere else. She is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. That is where the status and strata come into play, and that is where the obligations of the husband, in case of a wife, become a prominent one. In a proceeding of this nature, the husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive her of the benefit of living with dignity. Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life "dust unto dust". It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able- bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds.'
84. The respondent's mere plea that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife in presence of good physique along with educational g qualification." (emphasis in original) Considering the rival submissions of the parties, the nature of job and payment, costly life style of the revisionist, the amount paid to the revisionist according to his salary slip by his employer and other attending facts and circumstances of the case, I find no illegality, irregularitty or pervesity in the impugned order passed by the court below, the revision is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision stands dismissed. However, it is observed that any amount obtained by the revisionist towards maintenance in proceedings under Section12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act shall be liable to be adjusted in terms of the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Nena and another (supra). Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Ashish/- ASHISH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad