Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2698 (ALL)

ASHOK KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-11-22

PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Prabhat Chandra Tripathi,J. 1. Case called out. None appears on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. Sri I.M. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no. 1 are present. 2. Heard Sri I.M. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no. 1 and perused the record. 3. The instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the court of learned Additional Judge, Family Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad in Maintenance Case No. 43 of 2009-Smt. Rekha Vs. Ashok Kumar, by which the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. presented by the petitioner Smt. Rekha Devi against the opposite party Ashok Kumar was partially allowed; opposite party Ashok Kumar was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to the petitioner Smt. Rekha Devi from the date of presentation of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and he was further directed to pay Rs.2000/- per month each to the two children of the petitioner Smt. Rekha Devi for their maintenance allowance, education, fooding and treatment. Aggrieved by the aforementioned impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2012 of the court of learned Additional Judge, Family Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad, the opposite party Ashok Kumar has preferred this criminal revision with the prayer to allow the revision and set aside the aforementioned judgment and order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the court of learned Additional Judge, Family Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad. 4. It would not be out of place to mention here that by earlier order of this Court dated 4.9.2015 the revisionist was directed to appear in person on the next date of listing and furnish the proof of payment, if any, made by him. It was further directed that if the order dated 5.12.2012 is not complied with by the revisionist, it would be presumed that the revisionist has acted in violation of interim order, and accordingly suitable order would be passed. 5. However, order dated 9.10.2015 reveals that none appeared on behalf of the revisionist and the interim order was vacated. 6. The factual matrix of this case in narrow compass is enumerated as below:- 7. The marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 was solemnised on 1.5.2004 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. 5. However, order dated 9.10.2015 reveals that none appeared on behalf of the revisionist and the interim order was vacated. 6. The factual matrix of this case in narrow compass is enumerated as below:- 7. The marriage between the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 was solemnised on 1.5.2004 according to Hindu Rites and Customs. From the very date of arrival of the opposite party no. 2 at her in-laws place, she was tortured on demand of dowry by her parents-in-laws and sister-in-law. Out of marital wedlock of the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 one son was born on 11.1.2005. Thereafter, the revisionist went to Bombay for his livelihood. The husband Ashok Kumar and father-in-law Kanhaiya Lal used to beat her in inebriated state after consuming alcohol. The revisionist Ashok Kumar again went to Bombay in the month of March, 2007 to earn his bread and butter. Meanwhile, the opposite party no. 2 conceived and she bore a pregnancy of about two months. On 14.5.2007 she was turned down from her in-laws place by her parents-in-laws and sister-in-law after beating and torturing her on account of demand of dowry. The opposite party no. 2 has no independent source of livelihood and her father is a very poor person and a labour. 8. Before the court of learned Additional Judge, Family Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad written statement was filed by the revisionist denying the averments made by the opposite party no. 2 in her petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Both the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 deposed on oath before the court of learned Additional Judge, Family Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad. 9. Witness PW-1 Smt. Rekha Devi has supported the version of the petition presented under Section 125 Cr. P.C. and witness DW-1 Ashok Kumar revisionist has deposed on oath before the court of learned Additional Judge, Family Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad and reiterated his version as mentioned in his written statement. 10. After hearing the arguments of both the parties and also marshalling the evidence adduced by both the parties, the court of learned Additional Judge, Family Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad has partially allowed the petition of the opposite party no. 2 presented under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist and passed the abovementioned impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2012. 2 presented under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist and passed the abovementioned impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2012. There is no illegality, impropriety and perversity in the impugned judgment and order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court/Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad in Maintenance Case No. 43 of 2009-Smt. Rekha Vs. Ashok Kumar, which could warrant interference by this Court at this stage. 11. Moreover, the revisional jurisdiction does not postulate re-appreciation of evidence at this stage. 12. The revision is liable to be dismissed on merits. The revision is dismissed on merits.