Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1914 of 2021 Revisionist :- Vijay Gupta Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Basant Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
Heard Sri Basant Kumar Upadhay, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against judgment and order dated 20.3.2021 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Misc. Case No.393 of 2018(Smt. Mohini Gupta vs. Vijay Gupta) under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun.
Brief facts of the case are that opposite party No.2 has filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is alleged in the application that marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the revisionist on 17.6.2012 and she was tortured by the revisionist and his family members for non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and she was ousted from the house by the revisionist on 8.5.2017. The revisionist appeared before the Court below and filed his objection denying the allegation of wife given in application under section 125 Cr.P.C. It has been alleged by the revisionist that wife left the house without there being any sufficient cause and as such she is not entitled for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has already filed petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights which was registered as Case No. 216 of 2018(Vijay Gupta vs. Mohini Gupta) and that was allowed vide order dated 27.11.2019, and inspite of order dated 27.11.2020, opposite party no.2 is not ready to live with the revisionist.
Learned Family Court after considering rival submission of both the parties, has recorded finding that since opposite party no.2 was ousted from the house by the revisionist for non- fulfillment of demand of dowry and she filed complaint which was registered as Misc. Case No.2643 of 2018 under section 498-A, 323, 504 IPC, there is sufficient cause for opposite party no.2 to live separately from the revisionist.
Admittedly respondent no.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. The revisionist being husband of the opposite party no.2, even if he is not in any employment, is morally bound to discharge his legal liability of maintaining wife in any circumstances. The husband cannot be heard to say that he is not in a position to earn enough to maintain his wife. In the present case, the revisionist has not frankly disclosed his income, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. Now it is settled position of law that when the husband does not disclose to the Court the exact amount of his income and the question of maintenance of wife arises, the presumption would be easily permissible against the husband and the obligation of the husband is on a higher pedestal.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index, this Court is of the opinion that Rs.4000/- per month towards maintenance would not be treated to be on higher side rather it is too meager.
In view of above, the judgment and order dated 20.3.2021 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun at Orai is based on facts and circumstances of the case and there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference by this Court.
In the result, the criminal revision filed by husband fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.9.2021/P.P.