Back
2010 Supreme(All) 3645
2010 (71) ACC 668
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Ashok Srivastava, J.
Manoj Kumar Tripathi - Petitioner
Vs.
Smt. Kalpana Tripathi And Others - Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1309 of 2008
Decided on : 12.10.2010
Petitioner Counsel:- Utpal Chatterji
Respondent Counsel:- Govt. Advocate, Vijai Prakash
Simplified procedures and consideration of admitted facts and income evidence are crucial in family court matters.
Headnote:
Maintenance - Family Law - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act - 15 & 16 of the Family Court Act, 1984 - [1995 (25) ALR 502, 1982 Cr.L.J. 1460, II (1993) DMC 197(DB), I (1998) DMC 148 (FB), 2005 (2) AWC (2093), 1998(1) AWC 275, 1998 (3) AWC 1740] - The court discussed the consolidation of cases, recording of evidence, and determination of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The judgment referenced various case laws and emphasized the need for simplified procedures in family court matters. The court upheld the lower court's decision on maintenance based on admitted facts and income evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist filed against the judgment of the Family Court, Meerut, which decreed the divorce petition and allowed the petition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the wife on behalf of their two sons. The revisionist contested the consolidation of the cases and argued that no separate evidence was recorded for the maintenance petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the revision, upholding the lower court's decision on maintenance, citing the admitted facts and income evidence presented by both parties.
Issues: Consolidation of cases, recording of evidence, determination of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for simplified procedures in family court matters and upheld the lower court's decision based on admitted facts and income evidence.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision on maintenance.
Ashok Srivastava, J.
This revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment dated 13.2.2008 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No.72 of 2007, Smt. Kalpana Vs. Manoj under section 125 Cr.P.C.
Fortunately in the instant case most of the facts are admitted. It is admitted fact that the revisionist had married opposite party no.1 and out of this wedlock two sons were born who are opposite party nos. 2 & 3. It is also admitted that the revisionist and opposite party no.1 are living separately from each other since long and opposite party nos. 2 & 3 are living with their mother. As per records opposite party no.1 was married to the revisionist on 6.7.1994 in Kota Rajasthan. The revisionist was posted as Assistant Process Chemist in Darula Organic Company, Meerut. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 had come alongwith him to Meerut and they started living together. Opposite party no.1 was shocked when she came to know that the revisionist was a patient of Schizophrenia and this fact was concealed by him and his family members before the marriage. Due to this mental disorder the revisionist regularly misbehaved with opposite party no.1 and often assaulted her. Opposite party no.1 tolerated all his misbehaviour and during the passage of time opposite party nos. 2 & 3 were born. In the meantime opposite party no.1 continued her studies and managed to get a teaching job in a college. There was no This revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment dated 13.2.2008 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No.72 of 2007, Smt. Kalpana Vs. Manoj under section 125 Cr.P.C. Fortunately in the instant case most of the facts are admitted. It is admitted fact that the revisionist had married opposite party no.1 and out of this wedlock two sons were born who are opposite party nos. 2 & 3. It is also admitted that the revisionist and opposite party no.1 are living separately from each other since long and opposite party nos. 2 & 3 are living with their mother. As per records opposite party no.1 was married to the revisionist on 6.7.1994 in Kota Rajasthan. The revisionist was posted as Assistant Process Chemist in Darula Organic Company, Meerut. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 had come alongwith him to Meerut and they started living together. Opposite party no.1 was shocked when she came to know that the revisionist was a patient of Schizophrenia and this fact was concealed by him and his family members before the marriage. Due to this mental disorder the revisionist regularly misbehaved with opposite party no.1 and often assaulted her. Opposite party no.1 tolerated all his misbehaviour and during the passage of time opposite party nos. 2 & 3 were born. In the meantime opposite party no.1 continued her studies and managed to get a teaching job in a college. There was no change in the attitude and behaviour of the revisionist towards opposite party no.1. A time came when it became impossible for opposite party no.1 to live with the revisionist and as a consequence, due to his inhuman behaviour, opposite party no.1 left the house of the revisionist alongwith her two sons. She got another job in Mussorie and at present she is teaching there in some school.
2. Opposite party No.2 filed a divorce petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, which was registered there as Case No.56 of 2007, Smt. Kalpana Tripathi Vs. Manoj Kumar Tripathi under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She also filed in the same Court another case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was registered there as Case No.72 of 2007.
From the perusal of the judgment of the lower Court it appears that the learned Principal Judge clubbed the two cases together, recorded evidence and disposed of both the cases by a common judgment on 13.2.2008. It should be mentioned here that the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved with the prayer that the revisionist should give certain amount
