Court No. - 41
Reserved on 24.07.2018 Delivered on 24.08.2018 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2115 of 2001 Revisionist :- Ravindra Kumar Chaurasia Opposite Party :- D.J. & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Pushkar Srivastava,S.C. Srivastava With Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2342 of 2001 Revisionist :- Smt. Ragini Chaurasiya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Chitra Lekha Satsangi,A. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1- This criminal revision has been filed by Ravindra Kumar Chaurasia, the husband of opposite party no.2-Ragni against the judgment and order dated 06.07.2001 passed by District Judge (Family Court), Jhansi in Case No. 215 of 1998, Smt. Ragni Vs. Ravi Chaurasia, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby maintenance Rs.400/- per month was awarded in favour of Smt. Ragni and maintenance Rs.200/- per moth was awarded in favour of her daughter from the date of order.
2- Criminal Revision No.2342 of 2001 filed by the revisionist- Smt. Ragini Chaurasiya, wife of opposite party no.2-Ravi Chaurasiya for enhancement of maintenance against the judgment and order dated 06.07.2001 passed by Judge (Family Court), Jhansi in Case No. 215 of 1998, Smt. Ragni Vs. Ravi Chaurasia, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby maintenance Rs.400/- per month was awarded in favour of Smt. Ragni and maintenance Rs.200/- per moth was awarded in favour of her daughter from the date of order.
3- Since the above two criminal revisions are arising out of the same judgment and order dated 06.07.2001, hence they have been clubbed together and are decided by a common judgment.
4- In nutshell, brief facts of the case are that one Application No.
215 of 1998 was filed by Smt. Ragni, wife of Ravi Chaurasia under Section 125 Cr.P.C. alleging that the marriage between Smt. Ragni and Ravi Chaurasia was solemnized on 11.12.1996 at Jhansi. Thereafter, one daughter was born out of their wedlock. She was nine years of age. For the demand of dowry, Ravi Chaurasia tortured his wife and made false allegation against her that she is living in adultery and his daughter was not born out of wedlock of Ravi Chaurasia and Smt. Ragni. Ravi Chaurasia was an literate person and getting income Rs.5000/- per month. Due to wrong allegation against his wife and misbehavior of Ravi Chaurasia with her she is living with her parents.
5- Ravi Chaurasia in his written statement stated that he had married with Smt. Ragni and made allegation against Smt. Ragni that she is living in adultery and daughter was not born out of their wedlock. She has no income and is unemployed.
6- Smt. Ragni examined herself as P.W.1 and Ravi Chaurasia examined himself as O.P.W.1 and Shiv Prasad Chaurasia examined himself as O.P.W.2, father of Ravi Chaurasia.
7- After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the judgment and order was passed by the court below. Hence this revision.
8- Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Arvind Srivastava, holding brief of Sri Pushkar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State in (Criminal Revisio No. 2115 of 2001) and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State in (Criminal Revision No.3242 of 2001) and perused the record.
9- Marriage between the parties is admitted. Allegation made by Ravi Chaurasia against his wife was found false even the father of Ravi Chaurasia admitted that girl was born out of wedlock of Ravi Chaurasia and Smt. Ragni. It is also proved that his wife was not characterless. The burden lies upon the husband to prove that she was living in adultery but it has not been properly discharged by the husband and ground for separate living was sufficient in favour of Smt. Ragni. So far as income of Ravi Chaurasia is concerned, he is a qualified person (M.Sc.) and was earning by coaching and he is doing the business of repair of Gas Chullah and working in Hindu Vishwa Parishad but without pay. He is healthy person and according to 'Kundali' of the daughter she was born on 5.3.1998 at 6-00 P.M. The marriage was solemnized on 11.12.1996 and it is very clear that the daughter was born about one year and two months after marriage.
10. Question is whether opposite party no. 2 has succeeded to prove her case. Prove is defined under Section 3 of Evidence Act which is quoted here as under:-
"Proved".-A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists."
6. Question is whether a prudent man can believe that facts shown in the application of opposite party no. 2 do exist.
11. Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary proceeding. Order does not determine rights of parties as it was held by the Apex Court in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another, AIR 1999 SC 3348, wherein following has been observed:-
"It is to be remembered that the order passed in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties and the said section is enacted with a view to provide summary remedy for providing maintenance to a wife, children and parents. For the purpose of getting his rights determined, the appellant has also filed a Civil Suit, which is pending before the trial court. In such a situation, this Court in S. Sethurathinam Pillai v. Barbara alias Dolly Sethurthinam, {1971 (3) SCC 923} observed that maintenance under Section 488 Cr.P.C., 1898 (Similar to Section 125 Cr.P.C.) cannot be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusion for grant of maintenance could be reached. It was held that order passed under Section 488 is a summary order which does not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties; the decision of the criminal court that there was a valid marriage between the parties will not operate as decisive in any civil proceeding between the parties."
12. Moreover, in the case of Munna Devi vs. State of Rajasthan & another Appeal(Crl.) No. 1138 of 2001 decided on 6.11.2001, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the revisional power under the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner.
13. In the case of Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Mrs. Veena Kaushal and others, (AIR 1978 SC 1807) Krishna Iyer, J dealing with interpretation of Section 125 Cr.P.C. observed (at Para 9) thus:-
"This provision is a measure of social justice and specially enacted to protect women and children and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. We have no doubt that sections of statutes calling for construction by courts are not petrified print but vibrant words with social functions to fulfil. The brooding presence of the constitutional empathy for the weaker sections like women and children must inform interpretation if it has to have social relevance. So viewed, it is possible to be selective in picking out that interpretation out of two alternatives which advances the cause of the derelicts."
14. Section 125 Cr.P.C. is a measure of social justice on this point. It is also pertinent to mention here that intention of legislature also shows that this provision is measure of social justice because initially amount of maintenance was fixed to Rs.500/- per month. Subsequently, it was enhanced upto Rs.5000/- per month and later on these words have been deleted and present position is that there is no financial limit for maintenance under this section.
15. Question is whether the allegation that she is living in adultery, has been proved by the revisionist or not. In this regard it is pertinent to quote Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C.
"(4) No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent."
16. It was held in the case of Mehbubabi vs. Nasir Farid, 1977 CrLJ 391 (Bombay-DB) that mere friendship with a man does not amount to living in adultery.
17. Provision of Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. is an exception to general rule. Burden lies on husband to prove that his wife is living in adultery.
18. In the case of Laharam v. Melan Bai, 1987(2) Crimes Page 560 (Madhya Pradesh), it has been held that charge of adultery must be proved by cogent and reliable evidence.
19. In my opinion even if there is a valid decree of divorce, still the wife is entitled to maintenance till she gets remarried and becomes the wife of another person, if she qualifies all other aspects of Section 125 Cr.P.C. because explanation (b) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. specifically says that wife includes a woman who has been divorced by or has obtained a divorce from her husband and has not remarried.
20- Revision of Smt. Ragni Chaurasiya has also no force. The Judge, Family Court, Jhansi has rightly awarded maintenance Rs.400/- per month in favour of Smt. Ragni Chaurasiya and Rs.200/- per month to her daughter.
21- Considering the income of Ravindra Kumar Chaurasia, this Court finds that the amount awarded by the Judge, Family Court, Jhansi is sufficient. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned order dated 6.07.2001 passed by the Judge, Family Court Jhansi.
22. No other ground has been pressed/urged before this Court.
23- This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders. No interference is called for. Both revisions are bereft of merit and are hereby dismissed.
24- Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.
Order Date :- 24.08.2018 OP