Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.
Akhlesh Kumar Vaidhya – Appellant
Vs.
State Of U.P. And 2 Others – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 849 of 2019
Decided On : 26-2-2021
Dowry Prohibition Act – Sections 3, 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125 – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 – Maintenance – Criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station, whereby application for interim maintenance in aforesaid case has been allowed and awarded Rs. 15,000 per month as maintenance to opposite party no. 2 and 3.
Finding of the court: Provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C. is to provide for a social justice falling within the swim of Articles 15 (3) and 39 of the Constitution of India, which have been enacted to protect the weaker section of the society like women and children. – It is in the form of secular safeguard irrespective of personal law of the parties. – The object is to compel a man to perform moral obligations towards the society in respect of maintaining his wife, children and old parents so that they may not face destitution and become the liability of the society or may be forced to adopt a life of vagrancy, immorality and crime for their subsistence or go astray. – The proceedings are summary in nature and provide for a speedy remedy against starvation of a deserted wife, children or indigent parents. – To enforce the substantial issues of civil law, the only remedy available is in Civil Court, therefore, findings recorded in proceedings under Section 125, Cr.P.C. are not final and parties are always at liberty to agitate their rights in Civil Court. – Order under Section 125, Cr.P.C. does not finally determine the status, rights and obligations of the parties and it only provides for maintenance of indigent wives, children and parents – Judicial discretion, as has often been said, means a discretion which is informed by tradition methodolised by analogy and discipline by system – If the instant case is examined in view of the aforesaid settled legal propositions, it is not permissible for the Court to reappreciate the evidence. – More so, there is nothing on record to show that the findings of facts recorded by the Family Court are perverse, based on no evidence or have been arrived contrary to the evidence on record. – It is admitted fact that there is no source of income of her wife / respondent no. 2, so she is unable to maintain herself. – She is living at her parental house due to continuous harassment and demand of dowry by the revisionist and his family members. – Learned trial court after appreciating each and every fact awarded the maintenance allowance of Rs. 15,000/-(Rs. 10,000/-to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 5000/-to opposite party no. 3) in favour of opposite party no. 2. – Judgment of the learned family court is well reasoned and well discussed. – There is no illegality or irregularity in the assessment of the maintenance allowance so there is no interference warranted in the order passed by learned family court.
Result: Revision Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Suresh Kumar Gupta, J.
1. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 3.7.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 338 of 2017 (Smt. Neelu and Others Vs. Akhlesh) under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Babina, District Jhansi, whereby application for interim maintenance in aforesaid case has been allowed and awarded Rs. 15,000/-(Rs. 10,000/-for wife Smt. Neelu / opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 5000/-for her son Dhairya / opposite party no. 3) per month as maintenance to opposite party no. 2 and 3.
2. The facts of this revision emerges as such that opposite party no. 2 / Smt. Neelu has filed an application before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi on 1.7.2017 under section 125 Cr.P.C. with submission that revisionist / Akhlesh Kumar Vaidhya and opposite party no. 2 have got marriage on 4.7.2013 according to Hindu rituals and rites. At the time of said marriage, on demand of family members of the revisionist, father of opposite party no. 2 had given Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rs. Ten Lacs), gold, silver and other household articles. During substantiate of this wedlock, one male child namely, Dhairya, born in October, 2014. After some time the revisionist and his family members continuously harassing opposite party no. 2 on account of additional demand of dowry. Being aggrieved with torture of the revisionist and his family members, opposite party no. 2 has left her matrimonial house and since then she is living at her parental home. Opposite party no. 2 has lodged first information report under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 13.5.2017 at Police Station Babina, District Jhansi against the revisionist and his family members. Opposite party no. 2 has filed an application before the family court, Jhansi on 1.7.2017 under section 125 Cr.P.C. with allegation that she is a household lady and unable to maintain herself and her son so she claims for maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/-for herself and Rs. 50,000/-for her son / opposite party no. 3. During pendecy of this application before the family court an application for interim maintenance was also filed by the opposite party no. 2 on 7.4.2018 before the family court. Revisionist has filed an objection against the interim maintenance in which he has stated that he is now unemployed and out of job and anyhow he is surviving his life. After hearing both the party, by means of an order dated 3.7.2018, learned Family Court, Jhansi awarded interim maintenance to opposite party no. 2 and 3 as aforesaid and being aggrieved by order of the family court, this revision has been filed by the revisionist.
3. I have heard Sri Devi Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Babul Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as the learned A.G.A.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that learned trial court without considering the ground taken by the revisionist in his objection and also without determining the income of the revisionist and without assigning any reason, passed the interim maintenance order dated 3.7.2018 by which Rs. 15,000/-per month (Rs. 10,000/-for opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 5000/-for opposite party no. 3) shall be given to the opposite party no. 2 by the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that marriage of the opposite party no. 2 / Smt. Neelu was solemnized with the revisionist according to Hindu rituals and rites in very simple manner without any demand of dowry. It is further submits that opposite party no. 2 is a women of rude nature and she always quarreled with revisionist in Abu Dhabi (U.A.E.) and due to her violent behavior, revisionist has filed a divorce petition under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act on 16.3.2017 and being aggrieved with this petition, opposite party no. 2 has lodged an F.I.R. against the entire family member of the revisionist including revisionist on 13.5.2017 under section 498-A,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
