Samar Bahadur v. Party

Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, G.A., Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vipin Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 22th August, 2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur in Case No. 94 of 2021 (Rekha vs. Samar Bahadur) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Machhalishahar, District-Jaunpur whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) towards maintenance allowance on 10th day of each calendar from the date of filing of instant application.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that earlier an application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no.2 which was decided on the basis of compromise between the parties which is on record at paper no. 33. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to the conditions mentioned in the alleged compromise, which was held on 07.09.2013. For ready reference, the same is quoted hereunder: "सा्षी रेखा देवी उ०ल० 28 वषर् पत्नी समर बहादुर गौतम सा० मी० सररदेल्हा थाना िसकरारा िजला जौनपुर पु्ऴी हीरलाल सा० मी० कृ पाशंकर थाना म०शहर िजला जौनपुर बहलफ बयान िकया िक मेरी शादी आज से करीब 12-13 वषर् पूवर् समर बहादुर गौतम पु्ऴ सनवारी के साथ हुई 2 CRLR No. 6048 of 2024 थी। हम दोनों पित पतनी साथ रहकर खुशहाल जीवन ्ितीत कर रहे थे। उसी दौरान हम दोनों के संसगर् से एक पु्ऴ हिषत उ०ल० 11 वषर् व एक पु्ऴी हिषता उफर् सृि्ि उ०ल० ४ वषर् पैदा हुए। हम दोनों साथ साथ रहकर अपना जीवन ्ितीत कर रहे थे मेरे पित इसी दीवानी न्यायालय में अिधव्वा है जो लगभग 5-8 वषॏल से वकालत कर रहे हैं। लेिकन लगभग तीन वषॏल से हम दोनों पित पतनी में कु छ बातो को लेकर अनबन हो गयी। और तब हम लोगों ने आपस में िमल बैठकर िकसी दबाव नाजायज अलग अलग रहने का िनणर्य िलया। और उसके बाद पित ने मेरे व मेरे पिरवार वालों के िवरू्ध कई आपरािधक मुकदमा कर िदया तब मैने भी यह भरण-पोषण का वाद और 498 ए आई०पी०सी० का वाद भी ्ऺस्तुत िकया। िफर हम लोग मुकदमा लड़ते लड़ते थक गये कोई हल िनकलता न देखकर पुनः हम दोनों पित पत्नी आपस िमल बैठकर यह तय िकया िक हम लोग भिवष्य में अलग-2 रहेंगे बच्चों की देखरेख व पालन पोषण िश्ष-दी्षा मैं स्वयं अपने हुनर व आय से करूं गी। कभी आपसे व अपने बच्चों के िलस अपने पित से भरण पोषण की मांग नहीं करूं गी और हम लोग अलग-2 रह रहे हैं और रहेंगे। मैने अपने पित समर बहादुर से सुलह समझौता कर िलया है। कोई लेन-देन शेष नहीं रह गया है। स््ऴीधन मेरे पास है।"

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also drawn the attention of the Court to page no. 37 of the paper book, which is the statement of opposite party no.2 Rekha Devi, recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate-II Jaunpur on 7th September, 2013. On the above premises, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that for the same cause of action, opposite party no.3 could not file the instant application in which the impugned judgment has been passed as the same is not maintainable, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have fairly conceded that the opposite party no.2 had earlier filed an application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided on the basis of compromise and then opposite parties are living separately since then. They further submits that since the claim of opposite party no.2 for monthly maintenance allowance has already been come to an end after the aforesaid compromise, she is not entitled to get any further maintenance allowance from the revisionist but in favour of their minor children, such conditions shall not be applied on them and they are entitled to receive maintenance till they attain their age of majority.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the records including the impugned judgment, from the perusal of the compromise and the statement of the opposite party no.2 recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate-II, Jaunpur on 7th September, 2013, it is clear that she is living separately without any sufficient reasons. It is also clear that opposite party no.2 as a wife has waived off her right for getting any maintenance allowance after entering into such compromise, where she stated that she is living separately. 3 CRLR No. 6048 of 2024

7. So far as the maintenance of opposite party nos. 3 & 4 are concerned, admittedly the opposite party nos. 3 & 4 were minor at the time of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 15.01.2021, they are entitled to get maintenance allowance from the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of instant application and till their attaining the age of majority.

8. Hence the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 is affirmed. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that it would be in the interest of justice if the amount of arrears of maintenance allowance be/is directed to be paid in some easy equal installments.

9. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the trial court allowing the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2 is set aside whereas the said impugned judgment while allowing the interim maintenance allowance to opposite party nos. 3 & 4 is affirmed.

10. However, considering the facts that the amount of maintenance was paid from the date of filing of application, the revisionist might be is unable to pay total arrears of maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application till date on one stroke.

11. In such circumstances, it is directed that the revisionist shall pay the total arrears as awarded by the trial court in favour of opposite party nos.3 & 4 in 10 equal installments on the 7th day of each calendar month. The first installment shall commence from 27th October 2025. September 25, 2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, G.A., Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Court No. - 91 HON'BLE MADAN PAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vipin Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the judgment and order dated 22th August, 2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur in Case No. 94 of 2021 (Rekha vs. Samar Bahadur) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station-Machhalishahar, District-Jaunpur whereby the trial court while partly allowing the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 (wife) towards maintenance allowance on 10th day of each calendar from the date of filing of instant application.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that earlier an application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no.2 which was decided on the basis of compromise between the parties which is on record at paper no. 33. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to the conditions mentioned in the alleged compromise, which was held on 07.09.2013. For ready reference, the same is quoted hereunder: "सा्षी रेखा देवी उ०ल० 28 वषर् पत्नी समर बहादुर गौतम सा० मी० सररदेल्हा थाना िसकरारा िजला जौनपुर पु्ऴी हीरलाल सा० मी० कृ पाशंकर थाना म०शहर िजला जौनपुर बहलफ बयान िकया िक मेरी शादी आज से करीब 12-13 वषर् पूवर् समर बहादुर गौतम पु्ऴ सनवारी के साथ हुई 2 CRLR No. 6048 of 2024 थी। हम दोनों पित पतनी साथ रहकर खुशहाल जीवन ्ितीत कर रहे थे। उसी दौरान हम दोनों के संसगर् से एक पु्ऴ हिषत उ०ल० 11 वषर् व एक पु्ऴी हिषता उफर् सृि्ि उ०ल० ४ वषर् पैदा हुए। हम दोनों साथ साथ रहकर अपना जीवन ्ितीत कर रहे थे मेरे पित इसी दीवानी न्यायालय में अिधव्वा है जो लगभग 5-8 वषॏल से वकालत कर रहे हैं। लेिकन लगभग तीन वषॏल से हम दोनों पित पतनी में कु छ बातो को लेकर अनबन हो गयी। और तब हम लोगों ने आपस में िमल बैठकर िकसी दबाव नाजायज अलग अलग रहने का िनणर्य िलया। और उसके बाद पित ने मेरे व मेरे पिरवार वालों के िवरू्ध कई आपरािधक मुकदमा कर िदया तब मैने भी यह भरण-पोषण का वाद और 498 ए आई०पी०सी० का वाद भी ्ऺस्तुत िकया। िफर हम लोग मुकदमा लड़ते लड़ते थक गये कोई हल िनकलता न देखकर पुनः हम दोनों पित पत्नी आपस िमल बैठकर यह तय िकया िक हम लोग भिवष्य में अलग-2 रहेंगे बच्चों की देखरेख व पालन पोषण िश्ष-दी्षा मैं स्वयं अपने हुनर व आय से करूं गी। कभी आपसे व अपने बच्चों के िलस अपने पित से भरण पोषण की मांग नहीं करूं गी और हम लोग अलग-2 रह रहे हैं और रहेंगे। मैने अपने पित समर बहादुर से सुलह समझौता कर िलया है। कोई लेन-देन शेष नहीं रह गया है। स््ऴीधन मेरे पास है।"

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also drawn the attention of the Court to page no. 37 of the paper book, which is the statement of opposite party no.2 Rekha Devi, recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate-II Jaunpur on 7th September, 2013. On the above premises, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that for the same cause of action, opposite party no.3 could not file the instant application in which the impugned judgment has been passed as the same is not maintainable, therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have fairly conceded that the opposite party no.2 had earlier filed an application U/s 125 Cr.P.C. which was decided on the basis of compromise and then opposite parties are living separately since then. They further submits that since the claim of opposite party no.2 for monthly maintenance allowance has already been come to an end after the aforesaid compromise, she is not entitled to get any further maintenance allowance from the revisionist but in favour of their minor children, such conditions shall not be applied on them and they are entitled to receive maintenance till they attain their age of majority.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the records including the impugned judgment, from the perusal of the compromise and the statement of the opposite party no.2 recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate-II, Jaunpur on 7th September, 2013, it is clear that she is living separately without any sufficient reasons. It is also clear that opposite party no.2 as a wife has waived off her right for getting any maintenance allowance after entering into such compromise, where she stated that she is living separately. 3 CRLR No. 6048 of 2024

7. So far as the maintenance of opposite party nos. 3 & 4 are concerned, admittedly the opposite party nos. 3 & 4 were minor at the time of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 15.01.2021, they are entitled to get maintenance allowance from the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of instant application and till their attaining the age of majority.

8. Hence the impugned order dated 22.08.2024 is affirmed. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the revisionist prays that it would be in the interest of justice if the amount of arrears of maintenance allowance be/is directed to be paid in some easy equal installments.

9. Consequently, the impugned judgment passed by the trial court allowing the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party no.2 is set aside whereas the said impugned judgment while allowing the interim maintenance allowance to opposite party nos. 3 & 4 is affirmed.

10. However, considering the facts that the amount of maintenance was paid from the date of filing of application, the revisionist might be is unable to pay total arrears of maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application till date on one stroke.

11. In such circumstances, it is directed that the revisionist shall pay the total arrears as awarded by the trial court in favour of opposite party nos.3 & 4 in 10 equal installments on the 7th day of each calendar month. The first installment shall commence from 27th October 2025. September 25, 2025 C. MANI (Madan Pal Singh,J.) CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad