Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1965 of 2018 Revisionist :- Gajraj Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jahar Singh (Kashyap) Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Vikas Tiwari
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
List is being revised. Nobody is present on behalf of the applicant.
Heard Sri Vikas Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned Additional Government Advocate and have perused the record.
This revision petition is directed against the maintenance award of Rs. 3,500/- dated 09.04.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun.
Learned counsel for the applicant informed the Court that in spite of earlier order passed by this Court dated 11.06.2018, Rs. 18,000/- was initially made and no further payment of amount is being made.
On the last occasion, this Court had adjourned the matter on the illness slip of counsel for the applicant, Sri J.S. Kashyap vide order dated 02.01.2019 and the case was directed to be listed on 23.01.2019.
From the perusal of the records and the judgement, it clearly transpires that the marriage between the parties namely the applicant and the opposite party no. 2 had taken place on 20.06.2014. However, the relations thereafter went strained and it is alleged in the claim petition that the opposite party no. 2 was thrown out of the house in the month of July, 2015 and since then she is living with her parents.
It is contended by the counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the wife was always willing to live with her husband but the husband never took any sincere effort to maintain the matrimonial knot between the two. It is contended that though the application was filed for restitution of conjugal rights but no notice was effected personally upon the opposite party no. 2 and it was by way of substituted service through newspaper publication that the Court proceeded to pass an ex parte order decreeing the suit in question under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The findings of fact have come to be recorded by the court below that no plausible reason has been assigned by the husband in his written statement to demonstrate that the opposite party no. 2 was living with her parents on her own volition and therefore, she was not entitled for any such maintenance.
It is also reflected from the record that this maintenance petition was filed in the year 2015 and if the applicant was interested in resuming the married life with his wife, he would have mentioned in his written statement dated 04.11.2016 that he had instituted case under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore, it is argued that the applicant had maliciously instituted the proceedings under Section 9 to somehow set up a defence that the wife on her own volition was not living with her husband and therefore not entitled to maintenance.
No rejoinder affidavit has been filed to refute the allegations made in the counter affidavit and nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate that findings returned by the court are perverse and liable to be interfered with.
Revision petition lacks merit and is accordingly consigned to record.
Interim order, if any, stand discharged.
Order Date :- 23.1.2019 P Kesari