Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3563 of 2017 Revisionist :- Dhirendra Singh Parihar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiv Kumar Singh Rajawat Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Chandra Prakash Tiwari
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Chandra Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2017, passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Mahoba, in Case No. 221 of 2016 (Computer No. 51 of 2017) (Smt. Monika Singh vs. Dharmendra Singh Parihar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Mahoba by which the opposite part no. 2 has been awarded Rs. 9000/- per months as maintenance from the date of order.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2017, the present criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist before this Court on the ground that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. The opposite party no. 2 is highly educated and she is able to maintain her by teaching. Opposite opposite party no. 2 has herself withdrawn from the society of the revisionist and therefore she is not entitled to get any maintenance. The impugned judgment and order is against the law, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the impugned judgment and order has been passed keeping in view the entitlement of the opposite party no. 2 and the income of the revisionist. It is an admitted fact between the parties that both were married to each other but living separately. The further submission is that the revisionist is not maintaining the opposite party no. 2, therefore, her entitlement for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. cannot be disputed.
From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that both the parties were married on 07.05.2014. It is also an admitted fact that the revisionist-husband is an Engineer. It was alleged in the application that on account of demand of dowry, the opposite party no. 2 was being treated with cruelty. Usually, she was being harassed and maar-peet was also committed on her and she was forced to leave the matrimonial house.
The learned trial court has concluded on the basis of evidence that the wife is living separately with her parents and she was forced to leave the matrimonial house because of non fulfillment of demand of additional dowry. She had given consent to live with her husband, when the husband filed a case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The husband himself escaped away and did not take her back. The learned trial court has rightly concluded that if nothing wrong was being done with the wife, it is difficult to imagine that for what she will be living with her parents after marriage. The finding that the wife is living separately with her parents and no evidence was produced on behalf of the husband that his wife was earning anything, the learned court below has rightly concluded that she is entitled for the maintenance. On the evidence, it was found by the learned court below that the husband is an Engineer and he gets a hansom salary to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- per month, therefore, she was awarded Rs. 9000/- as maintenance, which does not appear to be excessive and is quite reasonable looking to the financial status of the husband and the background of the parties.
I do not find any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity or illegality in the impugned order. The revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 26.7.2019 sailesh