Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1464 (ALL)

Shahjahan v. State of U. P.

2018-07-03

OM PRAKASH VII

body2018
JUDGMENT : Om Prakash-VII, J. This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.4.2010 passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in petition no.335 of 2008 (Smt. Shahjahan and others Vs. Gaffar Khan) under section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Mahila Thana Navabad, Jhansi. 2. Heard Sri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is the legally wedded wife of opposite party no.2. It was a second marriage. Opposite party no.2 is neglecting in maintenance of her wife and is not paying any amount in further maintenance. She was ousted by the opposite party no.2 from her in-laws' house. Findings recorded by the court below denying the maintenance to the revisionist is illegal, perverse and against the law and facts. In support of his contention, reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the revisionist on the following case laws : 1. Mustafa Shamsuddin Shaikh Vs. Shamshad Begum Mustafa Shaikh, 1990 (2) BomCR 697 . 2. Munesh Kumari Vs. Shri Sheo Raj Singh and Anr., 2003 (1) ALT Cri 2. 3. Dr. Ajay Chaturvedi Vs. State of U.P. & Others (order dated 22.5.2013 passed in criminal revision no.1722 of 2010.) 4. Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 argued that vide impugned judgment and order, maintenance was allowed to the children. Since revisionist is living separately from her husband without having any sufficient reason, therefore, findings recorded by the court below cannot be termed to be illegal. At this stage, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also referred the evidence available on record to show the conduct of the revisionist in other Forum. 5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 6. In this matter, as is evident from the record, revisionist is the second wife of opposite party no.2. She is living separately. Learned court below, in the impugned order, allowed the maintenance to the children payable from the date of order. 6. In this matter, as is evident from the record, revisionist is the second wife of opposite party no.2. She is living separately. Learned court below, in the impugned order, allowed the maintenance to the children payable from the date of order. There is general rule that maintenance shall be ordered to be paid from the date of order unless there is specific direction to pay the maintenance amount from the date of application. Thus, maintenance order directing to be payable from the date of order cannot be termed to be illegal. As far as order passed by the court below in regard to the revisionist is concerned, revisionist herself admitted in cross-examination before the court concerned that a compromise was entered into between both the parties in a different forum and revisionist herself has admitted that she was on wrong footing. There is finding in the impugned order that conduct of the revisionist itself shows that she was on wrong footing. She is living separately from her husband without any cogent reason. Opposite party no.2, the husband is ready and willing to keep her. If the findings recorded by the court below in the impugned order are scrutinized minutely in the light of the law laid down in cases relied upon here-in-above by the learned counsel for the revisionist, no illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned order. Since revisionist is living separately from her husband/opposite party no.2 without any sufficient reason, therefore, findings recorded by the court below cannot be termed to be illegal or perverse. So far as law laid down in the cases of Mustafa Shamsuddin Shaikh, Munesh Kumari, and Dr. Ajay Chaturvedi is concerned, no help can be extended to the revisionist, as she herself is living separately without any sufficient reason. Opposite party no.2 has not ousted the revisionist from the house. Thus, no interference is required by this Court in the impugned judgment and order. Revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Revision is accordingly dismissed.