Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3618 of 2018 Revisionist :- Nebu Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Sheetala Prasad Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.
By way of the instant revision, challenge has been made to the order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Basti, in Application No.1653/11 of 2014 Kushlawati and another Vs. Nebu Lal, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Nagar, District Basti whereby the Principal Judge has directed Rs.8000/- and Rs.5000/- respectively to be paid to the mother and son, the wife and son of the present revisionist.
Contention has been raised on behalf of the revisionist that in this case, as per statement of opposite party no.2 Kushlawati, she has categorically stated that she is not ready to reside with the revisionist. However, she wants that the revisionist should reside with her after leaving his parents which cannot be done by him. Her statement is self-speaking about her intention and in no case, the amount of maintenance ought not have been allowed to be paid to opposite party nos.2 and 3.
Considering the various aspects of this case, obviously it is discovered that the revisionist has neglected opposite party nos.2 and 3. There was sufficient cause for living separately from the revisionist who happens to be Principal, in Lallan Prasad Junior High School at Basti and is earning Rs.51,050/- as monthly salary.
In view of above, it cannot be said that the amount of maintenance awarded by the trial court is excessive under facts and circumstances of the case. It is specific case of opposite party no.2 that her marriage with the revisionist was solemnized on 18.06.1995 and 'Bidai' ceremony took place after eleven years in the year 2006 and opposite party no.2 always remained loyal and faithful to family members and the husband. Out of the wedlock, one male child was born to her who is 6 years of age.
Specific allegations have been made that Rs.2,00,000/- were demanded from opposite party no.2 and she was mentally and physically tortured and in the night of 28.11.2012, the revisionist and his family members hatched conspiracy to kill opposite party no.2. Because of hatching this conspiracy, her father along with two persons arrived at the house of Nebu Lal and tried to reconcile him on the point but her husband and his family members abused openly and ousted opposite party no.2 from the house and asked not to come again unless she fulfils the dowry demand. For the last two years, the revisionist did not pay any maintenance amount to opposite party nos.2 and 3 and opposite party no.2 has become burden on her old parents.
It was inter-alia suggested that the present revisionist should reside with the parents of opposite party no.2 and he should not maintain his parents which objection was not sustained and not found to be correct by the Family Court. A proper scrutiny of facts vis-a-vis statement of opposite party no.2 was made by the Family Court while awarding maintenance to the tune of Rs.13,000/- in all which cannot be faulted with and no factual appreciation can be gone into by this Court at this stage.
In view of above, there is no illegality or perversity perceptible in the impugned order. The instant revision being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 rkg