1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2003
  6. /
  7. January

Mukesh Chand Verma vs State Of U.P. And Anr.

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|28 November, 2003


JUDGMENT Umeshwar Pandey, J.
1. This revision under Sections 397/401, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 2.6.2001 passed by the Principal Judge/Family Court, Meerut.
2. It is alleged by the opposite party No. 2 that she was married to the revisionist in the year 1995 and as per their status her parents solemnized this marriage to the satisfaction of everbody. Subsequently there was demand of dowry, which culminated into some dispute between the parties. It is alleged that his wife fell ill and she was admitted to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, Delhi. The revisionist/husband left her in the hospital and came back. After she got recovered from her illness, the opposite-party Smt. Kiran Lata went to her parents' place. Since the parents of the opposite party/wife were also not financially sound she shifted to the house of her maternal uncle at Meerut. As she was not able to maintain herself and her one child borne out of the wedlock with revisionist, she preferred a petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C before the Judge, Family Court, Meerut. The petition was contested by the revisionist and he filed a reply to the claim of maintenance. Parties led evidence in the case and after considering the whole material and upon hearing the parties, the Judge, Family Court found that the petitioner, for substantial cause had left her husband's home in Delhi and she in order to maintain herself and the child was entitled for the award of maintenance. Accordingly the impugned order was passed and monthly maintenance of Rs. 400/- each to the wife and child, Nishant (petitioner and her son) was awarded. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order passed by the Court below this revision has been preferred.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. None has, however, appeared on behalf of opposite party Smt. Kiran Lata even after sufficient service of the notice.
4. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the petition was not maintainable in the Court at Meerut as the petitioner was a resident of Delhi and her child and parents are also residing there with her. This point of objection was raised also before the Court below in which on the basis of material/evidence available on record it is held that the petitioner shifted from Delhi to Meerut and she resided with her maternal uncle and she filed the petition there and as such petition was maintainable before the Judge, Family Court, Meerut. This finding is finding of fact and it does not warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. However, when it is apparent that at the time when the petition was presented before the Judge, Family Court, Meerut, the petitioner was residing at Meerut with her maternal uncle, the Court below does not appear to have erred in recording a finding of fact that the petition was maintainable and cognizable in that Court at Meerut.
5. Learned Counsel for the revisionist also emphasised that from the facts available oil the record it is evident that the revisionist/husband was suffering from brain tumour and had to face financial crises on account of his admission to the hospital. As such he was not in a position as to afford giving maintenance to his wife and child. A perusal of the judgment of the Court below shows that on the discussion of evidence available on record it was found that the husband though was not in sound financial position, yet he is capable of giving at least maintenance of Rs. 400/- each to his wife and son. The finding recorded by the Court below was a finding of fact and no patent illegality apparent on the face of record has been pointed out by learned Counsel for the revisionist which may require interference by this Revisional Court.
6. In the aforesaid view of the matter and from the circumtances it is evident that the Court below has granted maintenance of Rs. 400/- each in favour of wife and the son of the revisionist which would be nothing but bare minimum to sustain the fooding charges of two individuals per month. As such the amount so awarded for maintenance of the opposite-party/wife and her son against the revisionist/ husband, does not require any interference of this Court and the judgment so recorded should be confirmed. The revision having no force is liable to be dismissed.
7. The revision is hereby dismissed. The judgment of the Court below dated 2.6.2001 is hereby confirmed.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Mukesh Chand Verma vs State Of U.P. And Anr.


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

28 November, 2003
  • U Pandey