Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3816 (ALL)

VINEET KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-11-28

ALOK KUMAR MUKHERJEE

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri V.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State as also perused the record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court, Kasganj in Case No. 435 of 2014 (Smt. Minakshi Vs. Vineet Kumar), whereby the application of the opposite party no.2 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed by directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 9,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the application. 3. The impugned judgment and order has been assailed by the revisionist on the ground that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has not considered the source of maintenance possessed by the revisionist-husband and has committed gross error by granting excessive amount of maintenance to the opposite party no.2-wife, because his parents are also dependant upon his earning and more so, has awarded the maintenance from the date of the application without giving any cogent reasons. 4. The brief facts of the case of the opposite party no.2-wife is that admittedly the opposite party no.2, Smt. Minakshi was married to the revisionist Vineet Kumar on 13.03.2013, according to Hindu rites. She was ill-treated by her husband and in-laws, during the period she remained in her in-laws house. Thereafter, on 18.08.2013, the revisionist-husband and in-laws of the opposite party no.2-wife, turned her out from her in-laws house only with her bare clothes. The father and other family members of the opposite party no.2-wife tried to mediate in the matter, but her husband and other in-laws misbehaved with them and they, time and again, demanded dowry, since she was residing in her parental house and the revisionist-husband did not care for her maintenance. She is unable to maintain herself and for this she is dependant upon her father. According to the opposite party no.2-wife, the revisionist/her husband is employed as Wireless Operator, Police Control Room, Unnao and earning Rs. 30,000/- per month and therefore, she claimed Rs. 10,000/- per month towards her maintenance. 5. After exchange of pleadings, recording and filing of evidence, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj decided the matter on 21.09.2016 by awarding monthly maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- to the opposite party no.2-wife from the date of the application, i.e., 20.11.2014. 6. 30,000/- per month and therefore, she claimed Rs. 10,000/- per month towards her maintenance. 5. After exchange of pleadings, recording and filing of evidence, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj decided the matter on 21.09.2016 by awarding monthly maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- to the opposite party no.2-wife from the date of the application, i.e., 20.11.2014. 6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the revisionist-husband preferred this revision on the aforesaid grounds. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist and the opposite party no.2 are the husband and wife. The opposite party no.2-wife had filed an application against the revisionist-husband, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., for providing her maintenance, being Criminal Case No. 435 of 2014, before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj, which was allowed, vide an order dated 21.09.2016, Where by the maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month has been awarded in favour of the opposite party no.2-wife, which is illegal and against the law, since the revisionist-husband is simply a Wireless Operator in Police Control Room and getting salary of only Rs. 20,384/- per month. It is further submitted that his parents are also dependent upon him, therefore, in the afore said meagre salary, the maintenance as awarded aforesaid is excessive as well as not affordable by the revisionist-husband and hence, is required to be set aside. 8. Learned A.G.A. has disputed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist and has submitted that the order impugned has been passed after considering the entire facts and evidence on record, which suffers from no illegality or in firmity in law and therefore, calls no interference by this Court. 9. I have heard rival contentions of the learned counsel for the revisionist as well as the learned AGA and perused the entire material filed by the revisionist-husband along with this revision. 10. On perusal of the material on record and the impugned judgment and order, it reveals that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has framed as many as five issues for deciding the application in question, as both the parties had admitted the factum of marriage, which are as follows: (i) whether the opposite party no.2-wife has deserted the revisionist-husband without any justifiable reasons? (ii) whether the opposite party no.2-wife is unable to maintain herself and has no source of maintenance? (ii) whether the opposite party no.2-wife is unable to maintain herself and has no source of maintenance? (iii) whether the financial status of the revisionist-husband is so sound to bear the maintenance of the opposite party no.2-wife? (iv) whether the revisionist-husband has failed to discharge the obligation of maintaining the opposite party no.2-wife? and (v) from which date the opposite party no.2-wife is entitled for getting the maintenance, if awarded? 11. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court vide his reasoned, detailed and speaking judgment and order in question has decided all the issues in favour of the opposite party no.2-wife and granted her maintenance to the tune of Rs. 9,000/- from the date of the application, i.e., 20.11.2014. The learned trial judge has given categorical finding relying upon the leading decisions of the Apex Court as well as this Court in the matter, while deciding each one of the aforementioned issues. He has also placed reliance on the specific and cogent evidence led by the opposite party no.2-wife. In his evidence DW-1 husband revisionist has admitted that he is employed in U.P. Police and is getting salary approximately Rs. 22,000/- per month. He did not specifically deny the factum that his father is running a shop for which the opposite party no.2-wife, in her statement, has categorically stated. The learned judge has also given specific finding on the issue no. (i) that there is no justifiable reason for the desertion of the opposite party no.2-wife and also that the parents of the revisionist-husband is living in the joint family and they are not actually dependent upon the revisionist husband. Also, given clear and specific finding that the revisionist-husband has failed to discharge his duty of maintaining his wife-opposite party no.2, since from the date she was turned out from her in-laws place and also held that the revisionist-husband had tried to delay the proceedings of this case and therefore, has awarded the maintenance of Rs. 9,000/- per month from the date of the application in question. No ground/exception, as enshrined in Sub-Section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been raised, either before the court below or before this Court, by the revisionist-husband. 12. 9,000/- per month from the date of the application in question. No ground/exception, as enshrined in Sub-Section (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been raised, either before the court below or before this Court, by the revisionist-husband. 12. All the grounds raised in support of the revision relates to the appreciation of the evidence, which was prerogative of the learned trial judge to appreciate and if the learned trial judge has placed reliance on the evidence of the opposite party no.2- wife and there appears no any major illegality, perversity or impropriety in the findings of the trial court or material irregularity or incorrectness in the procedure adopted by the trial court or the reasons recorded by him, this Court would not interfere and proceed to appreciate the evidence again. This is not a case where the finding recorded by the learned trial judge is based on no evidence or the evidence led is not admissible in evidence. 13. As the learned judge has held that the matrimonial relationship exists between the parties, therefore, the purpose of revisional jurisdiction is to rectify only the miscarriage of justice, if any. The main consideration is whether substantial justice has been done in the case in hand from the perusal of the record or not. It clearly manifests from the record that substantial justice has been done in the matter. Therefore, the finding of fact in maintenance proceeding cannot be reversed on fresh appreciation of evidence by the revisional court. The revisional Court have been loathe to interfere with a finding of fact, when such finding is perverse or based on gross error. The finding of fact in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that husband, having sufficient means, had neglected and refused to maintain the wife based on appreciation of evidence, cannot be interfered with a revision as held by the Apex Court in the decision of State of Orisa Vs. Nakula Sahu AIR 1979 SC 663 and the decision of this Court in the case of Mithlesh Kumari Vs. Vindhawasni 1989 All. L.J.443. 14. The learned counsel for the revisionist is unable to show any defect, perversity, illegality, impropriety or material irregularity or incorrectness in the findings recorded by the learned judge in the impugned judgment and order or in the procedure adopted by him. 15. Vindhawasni 1989 All. L.J.443. 14. The learned counsel for the revisionist is unable to show any defect, perversity, illegality, impropriety or material irregularity or incorrectness in the findings recorded by the learned judge in the impugned judgment and order or in the procedure adopted by him. 15. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order as well as entire material on record, it appears that the court below has considered all the necessary ingredients contemplated under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and has passed the reasoned and speaking order on merits. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no illegality, impropriety, perversity, material irregularity or incorrectness has been committed by the court below in passing the impugned judgment and order. The amount of maintenance awarded in this case is also just and proper and granting the same from the date of the application, i.e., 20.11.2014 is also proper and as per law. There appears no justification for interference in the impugned judgement and order. 16. Accordingly, the revision is bereft of merit and is dismissed. 17. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the trial court forthwith for information and necessary compliance.