Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3195 of 2018 Revisionist :- Smt. Gulista Parveen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Shrawan Kumar Pandey,Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record to the court below.
This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Family Court/Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Court No. 2, Firozabad in Case No. 776 of 2014 (Smt. Gulista Parveen Vs. Mohammad Farukh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
As per the office report dated 27.10.2018 the notice on opposite party no. 2 has been served. Record of the court below has also been received.
The submission is that in her statement as A.P.W.-1, the revisionist stated that she is living apart from the opposite party no. 2 on account of the demand of dowry misbehavior beating and the habit of opposite party no. 2 of drinking liquor. On account of beating she suffered miscarriage and she was tortured for the purpose of not bringing dowry.
It has been submitted that the court below has dismissed her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that she is living apart from her husband without justifiable any reason. It has been submitted that she had disclosed the reason before the court why she is living apart from her husband. Only because the applicant has not made any report before the police her statement was disbelieved. It has been submitted that the finding of the court below that because she did not made any complaint before the police it would be deemed that there was no valid reason is not the correct finding recorded by the court below. If the applicant choose not to file a complaint against her husband and is living apart from him on account of his misbehavior, it was a valid reason and there is no law that such fact is required to be proved only by lodging of the first information report.
Despite service of notice on opposite party no. 2 he has not put in appearance before this court. The order of the court below does not appears to be justified. The findings recorded are not correct and from the material on record it is clear that the revisionist had reason for living apart from opposite party no. 2.
In view of the above the order dated 24.08.2018 passed by the Judge Family Court, Firozabad is hereby quashed.
The court below is directed to pass a fresh order within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It shall be open for the parties to lead further evidence, if they like.
This revision is allowed.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Rohit