Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1378 (ALL)

Shiv Kumar Srivas v. State Of U. P.

2020-11-25

DINESH PATHAK

body2020
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Pathak, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Om Prakash, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the order proposed to be passed hereunder, this Court is proceeding to finally decide this matter at the admission stage, without putting notice respondents no.2 and 3. 3. Instant revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 09.10.2020 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No.688 of 2017 (CNR No.UPJS02-002459-2017), Police Station-Arach, District-Jhansi, whereby application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by applicant/respondent no.2 has been partly allowed directing the present revisionist (husband of applicant/respondent no.2) to pay Rs.3000/ per month to his wife/respondent no.2 and Rs.1000/-per month to his minor son/respondent no.3 towards maintenance, from the date of aforesaid judgment and order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record filed with memo of revision. 5. Marriage of respondent no.2 was solemnized with revisionist on 22.04.2017 according to Hindu riots and customs, in which cash and gifts were given by parents of respondent no.2 as per their capability. They were blessed with a male child, who has been arrayed as respondent no.3. Thereafter, due to some misunderstanding between them, respondent no.2 deserted the revisionist and went to reside at her parental home. Respondent no.2 moved application dated 20.12.2017 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance alleging therein that her in-laws were not providing proper nutritional diet to her during pregnancy period as a result of which she used to remain sick and she was being harassed due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry made by her husband and in-laws. In the said application it has further been submitted that despite best efforts, in-laws of respondent no.2 had refused to toe the line and ultimately on 28.08.2017, she was brutally beaten by her husband and in-laws, who after snatching away her entire Stridhan, kicked her out, from her matrimonial home, with her son. It has also been submitted that in-laws of respondent no.2 had never taken care of her child (respondent no.3). Respondent no.2 is fully dependent on her parents and in case she does not get support from her in-laws, she will be compelled to starving condition. 6. It has also been submitted that in-laws of respondent no.2 had never taken care of her child (respondent no.3). Respondent no.2 is fully dependent on her parents and in case she does not get support from her in-laws, she will be compelled to starving condition. 6. Against aforesaid application of respondent no.2, revisionist filed objection i.e. Paper No. 7A denying all the allegations made in said application and stated that respondent no.2 herself had deserted the revisionist. It is further stated that she herself had kept the Stridhan and other gifts of marriage and took those to items her parental home. 7. After considering rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the trial Court has granted maintenance amounting Rs.3000/-per month to wife and Rs.1000/-per month to the child. In deciding Issue no.1, Court below had given categorical finding that respondent no.1 and 2 are husband and wife and respondent no.3 is the child born out of their wedlock. In deciding Issue no.2 with respect to separate living of O.P. no.2, Court below has given a definite finding that O.P. no.2 was tortured by her in-laws and she was kicked out from her matrimonial home during her pregnancy period, which was a reasonable cause to live separately from her husband and in-laws. In deciding Issue no.3, with respect to entitlement of applicants/respondent nos.2 and 3 for getting maintenance, Court below had discussed contention of both parties in detail with respect to their source of income. Applicant/respondent no.2 stated that her husband has owned more than 20 bighas agricultural land and a big house in the village from which he earned Rs.10,000/-per month as rent and he also earned more than Rs.10 lakh per annum from the agricultural land. That apart, he was having 10 buffaloes and by selling milk, he earned Rs.30,000/-per month, whereas, per contra, opposite party (revisionist herein) had stated that applicant/respondent no.2 is an educated lady, who was working as a Beautician in a Beauty Parlour and used to earn Rs.15,000/-per month and she also earned Rs.10,000/-per month by tuition. Court below had observed that though both the parties have disclosed source of income of each other but failed to give any evidence in support thereof. It is further observed that in present scenario, even a labour can earn about Rs.300/-per day i.e. in aggregate Rs.9000-10,000/-per month. Court below had observed that though both the parties have disclosed source of income of each other but failed to give any evidence in support thereof. It is further observed that in present scenario, even a labour can earn about Rs.300/-per day i.e. in aggregate Rs.9000-10,000/-per month. A mentally and physically healthy person is legally under an obligation to maintain his wife and children. He cannot escape from his legal responsibilities and in that condition, minimum amount of Rs.3000/-per month should be paid to wife/respondent no.2 and Rs.1000/-per month to the child/respondent no.3. 8. After considering the impugned order and documents on board filed along with memo of revision, I find no illegality and infirmity in the order passed by Court below. It is an admitted fact that respondent no.2 is wedded wife of the revisionist and out of their wedlock they were blessed with a male child (respondent no.3), who is at present about nine months old. Under legal obligation, revisionist has to maintain his wife and child. He cannot escape from his moral duty on one or the other pretext. 9. Learned counsel for revisionist has laid much emphasis on the fact that present revisionist is unemployed and he is pursuing law from Bundelkhand College, Jhansi. Even assuming present revisionist to be unemployed, such eventuality cannot be resorted by a person to escape from his moral liability to maintain his wife and child. 10. In Chaturbhuj v. Sitabai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 , Apex Court held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and shelter by a speedy remedy. Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is a measure of social justice especially enacted to protect women and children, and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15 (3), reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution. 11. The provisions as embodied under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are summary in nature. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. meena and others, (2015) 6 SCC 353 , Apex Court held that Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. meena and others, (2015) 6 SCC 353 , Apex Court held that Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain herself and the children. Since it is sacrosanct duty of the husband to provide financial support to his wife and minor children, the husband was required to earn money even by physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned in the statute. 12. In the case of wife filing an application for maintenance from the husband, unless he is able to establish that he is permanently disabled from getting any income, he cannot be exonerated from payment of maintenance to his wife. 13. In the present scenario, seeing the high living cost, it cannot be said that amount of maintenance as awarded by the Court below is exorbitant. Learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order passed by Court below. 14. Thus revision is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Judgment and order dated 09.10.2020 passed by Court below is hereby affirmed and maintained. 15. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court below forthwith for information and necessary compliance, if required.