The main legal point established in the judgment is that a wife is entitled to receive maintenance from her husband until the date of her remarriage, and the awarded maintenance would be payable to the wife only up to the date of her remarriage.

UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

( 1 ) THESE two revisions under sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal procedure (hereinafter referred to as the code) arise out of the common judgment and order dated 1-6-1996 passed by the judge, Family Court, Allahabad and there fore, they are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to the present revision, are that Smt. Savitri Pandey wife of the revisionist of Criminal Revision No. 1196/1996 moved the Judge, Family Court, allahabad under Section 125 of the Code for grant of maintenance stating that on account of persistent demand of dowry soon after her marriage which was solemnized on 6-5-1987, she had to leave her husbands home and came to stay with her parents and since then (21 -6-1987) when no financial aid had been received from her husband. On the other hand, husband and his family members had been insisting upon for the fulfilment of demand of dowry. She has all along been living on the mercy of her parents and finally on 24-9-1988 the petition, demanding Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance, was filed.

( 3 ) THE petition was contested by her husband-Prem Chand Pandey by filing a written statement in which he pleaded that neither he had demanded dowry nor the wife has been harassed by him or by his family members for that purpose. She was herself not willing to stay in the joint family and wanted the husband to come and stay with her at her parents place.

( 4 ) THE parties in support of their case led evidence, oral as well as documentary and the learned Judge, Family Court, after having heard the respective counsel for parties, found that payment of maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month would be just and proper in the circumstances of the case and as such the impugned order was passed. The Court below also directed that the arrears with effect from 24-9-1988, the date of filing of the petition, shall be paid in instalments of Rs. 500/- per month.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid judgment and order, both the parties i. e. wife and the husband preferred their respective revisions and challenged the impugned judgment. The husband has objected to the grant of any amount as maintenance to the wife whereas wife has challenged the rate at which the maintenance has been granted.

( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Learned counsel for the revisionist appearing in criminal Revision No. 883/1996 filed by the wife, Smt. Savitri Pandey, has not advanced any substantial argument in support of the claim objecting to the rate at which maintenance has been granted by the court below in her favour. I have looked into the impugned judgment and order granting the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month and have considered the facts and circumstances given by the Court below and also the reasons recorded by it for granting such monthly rate of the payment of maintenance. There are justifiable ground as stated in the judgment for fixing the aforesaid rate of maintenance and no legal or procedural lacuna appears to be apparent on the face as to attract interference against the same in the present revision. Thus, the criminal Revision No. 883/1996, filed by smt. Savitri Pandey, having no merit, is hereby dismissed.

( 7 ) AS regards the husbands case, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner/ wife had already filed the petition for divorce which has been granted by the Family Court and ultimately went through appeals to the supreme Court. The judgment rendered by the Apex Court in that case (CA Nos. 20-21 of 1999) is reported in AIR 2002 SC 591 : (2002 All LJ 355 ). Referring to the aforesaid judgment, it has been contended that the petitioner/wife, after the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court on 8-7-1996, solemnized her second marriage on 29-5-1997. The aforesaid dates find mention in para-15 of the judgment of the Apex Court. Learned counsel for the revisionist/husb

Click Here to Read the rest of this document