Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3403 of 2017 Revisionist :- Shravan Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satyvrat Tripathi,Santosh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel,Shivarchan Mishra
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
None is present on behalf of the revisionist in the revised call.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 Shri Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel and learned AGA for the State are present.
It appears from the order-sheet that vide order dated 12.07.2019 the stay order was vacated even then the revisionist is not present today when case called out. The case is fixed for final hearing.
Heard Shri Ravitendra Pratap Singh Chandel, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
This revision has been filed by the husband against the order dated 29.07.2017 passed by the Family Court, Kaushambi in Case No. 741 of 2014 (Savita Devi Vs. Shravan Kumar Pandey) under section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Sarain Akil, District Kaushambi by which the learned court below has awarded maintenance of Rs. 5000/- per month in favour of opposite party no. 2.
Aggrieved by the impugned judgement this revision has been filed submitting that the marriage between the two was solemnized on 02.05.2009 without any dowry according to Hindu rituals. Opposite party no. 2 is arrogant lady and she always force the revisionist to live in city and on his refusal a FIR was already lodged against him for the offence under section 498A, 323, 506 IPC and section 3/4 D.P. Act. He is low qualified person and he is doing seasonal private job in Rajasthan and he is not in position to give Rs. 5000/- to opposite party no. 2. This aspect has not been considered by the court below while passing the impugned order. Hence the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
From the perusal of the judgement and pleading of the parties, it is clear that both the parties are legally married husband and wife. It is also admitted fact that wife is not residing with her husband. This fact has been established by the witness P.W.-2 Ashish Kumar Dwivedi who is the father of the wife, that she was married with the revisionist and when she went to her matrimonial house she used to discharge her responsibility as wife but the husband side started demanding dowry of Rs. 2 lakhs and other domestic items and for that they started beating the wife. She was forced to leave the matrimonial house and till date no amount against maintenance has been given by the husband. It is also clear that the wife has no income and it has been stated that the husband is earning Rs. 20 to 22 thousand per month by operating computer in Jodhpur. The learned court below with reference to the judgement of the Supreme Court in case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, AIR 2015 SC 2025 = 2015 CRLJ 2551 and Mohan Singh Vs. Mina and others AIR 2014 SC 2875 has rightly concluded that where the wife herself is unable to maintain her, it is always the responsibility of the husband to pay maintenance to her. The husband cannot deprive the wife from her maintenance as she has the right to live with dignity. It is the personal responsibility of the husband to provide maintenance to his wife, if she is unable to maintain herself, unless it is shown that without reasonable cause she is living separately from the husband. No such evidence has been given from the side of the husband. The learned court below has awarded Rs. 5000/- as maintenance to wife and in view of increase in cost of living, the same does not appear to be illogical or irrational.
In view of the above discussions, I find no error of jurisdiction nor any material irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgement, the amount of Rs. 5000/- considering the present cost of living is not in the higher side, hence, the revision has got no force and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Bhanu