Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3497 of 2021 Revisionist :- Yamin Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A and perused material on record.
The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist assailing the Judgement and order dated 12.11.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahar in Case No. 620 (Smt. Nazrana @Nazreen Vs. Yameen) under section 125 Cr.P.C. by which maintenance to the tune of Rs. 6000/- per month has been awarded to the opposite party from the date of application.
Brief fact of the case are that the marriage of the revisionist with opposite party no. 2/ victim was solemnized on 18.11.2018 as per Muslim rites and rituals and the father of victim has spent Rs.3,50,000/-for performance of the aforesaid marriage but in-laws of the victim was not satisfied. After the marriage, they started demanding additional dowry i.e. one car and Rs. 200,000/- and they used to commit marpeet as well as used filthy/ abusive language against her parents so as to mount pressure upon her to bring the aforesaid additional dowry. On 25.01.2019 at about 7 am when the victim raised objection against the use of filthy /abusive language. On raising of such objection, in-laws assaulted the victim by danda and lathi with intention to kill her. After inflicting injuries on her, they got her seated on a motorcycle and left her at the home of middleman i.e. at Village Neemkhera, who played important role in the settlement of her marriage inasmuch as warned her not to come back to her matrimonial home unless, aforesaid demands are arranged.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 on the basis of false and frivolous allegation. It is further submitted that the opposite party no. 2 left the house of the revisionist without sufficient reasons. It is also submitted that the court below passed the impugned order awarding Rs. 6000/- per month without applying its judicial mind. It is then submitted that the revisionist is a motor mechanic and is working in shop of another persons. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.2 is a skilled lady and did weave works and from which she is able to earn Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/-per month, therefore, she is able to maintain herself. It is further submitted that without calling for objection, Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that the revisionist is a motor mechanic inasmuch as is the owner of the shop and earned Rs. 50,000/- per month as well as Rs. 30,000/- is earned from agricultural that right from the date of marriage, the opposite party no.2 was being subjected to cruelty for demand of one car and additional dowry and cash of Rs.2 lacs but the father of the opposite party no.2 was unable to fulfil the demand, she was subjected to cruelty and impugned order dated 12.11.2021 has been rightly passed by which Rs. 6000/- per month as maintenance has been awarded which is meagre in the present situation.
The Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another (2021) 2 SCC 324, observed in para no.81 as under :- (SCC, P.372, Para 81 "81, A careful and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors.The test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial home.36 The maintenance amount awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort."
After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, there is no dispute that the applicant is a motor mechanic and the marriage has been solemnized between the parties on 18.11.2018 and an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the opposite party no.2 on 25.08.2020 and the opposite party no. 2 is residing in her father's house since 25.01.2019, I find that the impugned order dated 12.11.2021 does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error.
In view of the above, the present Criminal Revision filed by the revisionist has no force and the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.12.2021 aks