Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1479 of 2018 Revisionist :- Krishna Pal @ Pappu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjeev Mishra Gana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
On the last occasion the matter was adjourned on the request of the counsel for the revision-applicant.
List is being revised. Nobody is present on behalf of applicant.
Heard learned Additional Government Advocate.
The present revision petition is directed against the award of maintenance for Rs. 3,000/- vide order dated 30.01.2018 by the Principal Jude, Fast Track Court No. 1, Bareilly, in maintenance claim petition No. 983 of 2009. The facts are that the applicant and the opposite party no.
2 entered into matrimonial knot on 16.07.2007 as per Hindu custom. However, thereafter, relations between the spouses went strained and on 20.01.2009, the opposite party no. 2 was thrown out of the house and the case has been instituted by her under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The claim petition for maintenance was filed for Rs. 5,000/- on the ground that she was willing to live with her husband but the applicant has not taken care to maintain her at any point of time.
Countering to allegations made in the claim petition in the written statement, the present applicant had stated that she has just lived with the applicant only for 20 days and that she only on her volition started living with her parents and after that only to harass the applicant, dowry cases have been instituted against him. The applicant states in the written statement that he was willing to take her and wanted to resume a happy married life.
It was also stated in the revision petition that the opposite party no. 2 was well-versed in stitching work and that she was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month on her own and therefore, is not entitled for any maintenance.
The Court has recorded a categorical finding of fact that once the marriage was admitted between the applicant and the opposite party no. 2, it was a bounden duty of the husband to maintain his wife as per his financial means, the court below has found that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant has tried sincerely to take the opposite party no. 2 with him to resume the matrimonial life and therefore, he having failed to comply with the fundamental duty towards his wife, the applicant is liable to maintain. Making a proper assessment of income of Rs. 9,000/- on the basis of daily earning, the Court has passed an award for maintenance of Rs. 3,000/-.
There is nothing on record in this revision petition to demonstrate that findings of fact returned by the Court below are perverse or that any manifest error has been committed in making award of maintenance under the order impugned.
Revision petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Consigned to records.
Order Date :- 23.1.2019 P Kesari