Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3074 of 2018 Revisionist :- Rakesh Babu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Vimal Kumar,Satish Chandra Jaiswal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamla Kant Mishra,Maohammd Nadeem,Varun Mishra Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
List is revised. None appears on behalf of the applicant to press this revision. Shri Varun Mishra, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
This revision is directed against the order dated 27.7.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kannauj whereby a maintenance of Rs.5,000/- in the break up Rs.2500/- to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.2,500/- to the opposite party no.3 has been awarded.
The order of maintenance passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, has been questioned on the ground that the judgment passed by the court below suffers from the vice of perversity and that the applicant has no definite source of income as he at times does labour work and at times works as vegetable vendor on footpath of Delhi. The next ground taken in the revision is that the applicant has the responsibility of his old aged parents and other members of the family.
Having heard the learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned Additional Government Advocate and having perused the record, I find that the court below has raised three points for determination :-
(a) Whether the opposite party no.2 is validly wedded wife of the present applicant;
(b) whether the applicant has reasons justified enough to live separately and that she has been ignored by the husband; and
(c) whether the opposite party no.2 is not able to sustain herself and whether the applicant has sufficient means to maintain opposite party nos.2 and 3.
On all three points, the court below has considered the material available on record and the oral testimony of the relevant witnesses and has recorded a finding of fact that the marriage of the applicant with the opposite party no.2 is not disputed and, therefore, she is validly wedded wife and that she has sufficient reasons justified enough to live separately as the applicant was not able to maintain peace at home and his sister and the mother alongwith his brother had shown cruelty towards the opposite party no.2. She was at times also physically assaulted and, therefore, if she started living peacefully away from her in- laws and the husband, reason was justified one as she could not live in such a cruel atmosphere. On the point of subsistence and on the point of sustenance and the source of income of the rival parties, the court below has recorded a categorical finding of fact that the applicant being a villager with good agricultural fields besides private work, has sufficient means to sustain, not only his ailing parents and the other family members, but also to maintain wife and daughter. The court has also held that the opposite party no.2 has no independent source of income and, therefore, she was not able to maintain herself and the daughter who was born out of the wedlock between the two.
In view of the above, I do not find any justification to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the trial court and even if other sons are residing with the father, there is no justification to deny the maintenance to the wife and the daughter who has started living separately for sufficient reasons discussed hereinabove. In view of the above I do not find the amount of maintenance to be too excessive that may warrant any interference.
Revision lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.
Order Date :- 27.2.2019
Anand Sri./-