Court No. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1378 of 2016 Revisionist :- Amit @ Shilu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav,Brij Kumar Yadav,Sharib Salaman Ahmad Ansa Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhirendra Srivastava
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is not present to argue the case. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A., for the State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.3.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun at Orai whereby application of the opposite party no. 2 (Rekha) and her son (Anmol) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was allowed and revisionist (Amit @ Shilu) was directed to pay Rs. 4,000/- monthly maintenance to his wife (Smt. Rekha) and Rs. 2000/- monthly maintenance to his minor son (Anmol) until he attains majority from the date of presentation of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 3.1.2012.
Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no. 2 (Smt. Rekha) was married with revisionist (Amit @ Shilu) on 19.2.2001. She went to her matrimonial home after her marriage. She was subjected to cruelty and harassed by her husband and in-laws. In April 2011 his son Anmol was born from their wedlock. In September 2011, she was compelled to live her matrimonial home by her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jethani). She has no mean to maintain herself. Her husband (Amit @ Shilu) is a businessman and earns Rs. 30,000/- per month from his business.
Revisionist (Amit @ Shilu) has admitted the marriage with Smt. Rekha but stated that opposite party no. 2 (Smt. Rekha) refused to live with him even after her request. She started cruelty with his mother. On request of his mother, he started to live in Kanpur Nagar from the year 2006. Smt. Rekha started living adulterous life during that period. She started threatening him and his family members to implicate in demand of dowry case. After 2006, he has no physical relationship with his wife Smt. Rekha. Master Anmol is not his son. Smt. Rekha has married again with some other person and she is able to maintain herself.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that Smt. Rekha has lived with him for about 8-9 years very peacefully. She has not made any complaint against him and his family members about cruelty, harassment or demand of dowry. She is living separately from him without any sufficient cause and Master Anmol is not his son. On 23.1.2017 a divorce decree between them has been passed.
Learned A.G.A., contended that there is no any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court.
From perusal of the record, it is evident that several allegations have been levelled by the revisionist against her wife Smt. Rekha. In such circumstances, it is not possible for a wife to live with her husband. In the impugned order, learned trial court has specifically mentioned that in the statement on oath, revisionist (Amit @ Shilu) has not stated a single word that Anmol is not his son. The fact that divorce decree has been passed between revisionist and opposite party no. 2 (Smt. Rekha) on 23.1.2017 is not relevant for decision of this revision.
The impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is based on evidence and the same is not perverse. Accordingly, I find no illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated 28.3.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun at Orai.
In the result, this criminal revision stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Jaswant