Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
Arshiya Rizvi and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 763 of 2018
Decided On : 13-05-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Nadeem Murtaza, Mohd. Mohsin.
For the Respondent: Purnendu Chakravarty.

Point of Law: Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is available to revisionist once she had taken resort to proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 125 - Maintenance - Enhancement of maintenance awarded - High Court has ample power to see the illegality, perversity and error committed by the court below. In the present case, the issue of divorce under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been decided and revisionist has been refused the maintenance. In the present case, the finding runs against the record and not in accordance with law.
Finding of the Court:
High Court has ample power to see the illegality, perversity and error committed by the court below. In the present case, the issue of divorce under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been decided and revisionist has been refused the maintenance. In the present case, the finding runs against the record and not in accordance with law.
Result: Application allowed.

JUDGMENT :

BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. The present revision has been preferred with a prayer to quash the judgment and order dated 22.05.2018, passed by the Principal Judge/A.D.J. Family Court, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 360/2007 (Baby Sukaina @ Zahra Rizvi and Another vs. Shri Adil Rizvi), so far as it relates to the rejection of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in respect of revisionist no. 1 and also enhance the amount of maintenance awarded to the revisionist no. 2.

2. Revisionist no. 1-wife and revisionist no. 2-daughter of opposite party no. 2, filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stating therein that revisionist no. 1 was married to opposite party no. 2 on 15.01.2003 at Lucknow according to Muslim religion (Siya) rites. After marriage, revisionist no. 1 - wife came to the house of opposite party no. 2-Shri Adil Rizvi and led her marital obligation. Out of the wedlock of revisionist no. 1 and opposite party no. 2, a girl child was born on 07.07.2004. It has been further mentioned in the application that parents of revisionist no. 1-wife had given dowry as per their financial condition like golden and silver jewelary, clothes, colour television, C.D. player, washing machine, fridge, A.C. and furniture etc. Rs. 40,000/- and a motorcycle was demanded by the father of opposite party no. 2. His father asked the revisionist no. 1 to bring the aforesaid amount and motorcycle from her parents. The mother of opposite party no. 2, Smt. Khurshid Zamal @ Rani asked revisionist no. 1 to bring one Maruti Car, one Generator as dowry as her father promised to give the same. The application further indicates that after sometime of marriage, the relation between revisionist no. 1-wife and opposite party no. 2-husband started getting strange disposition and they created pressure to bring dowry as mentioned aforesaid. When the dowry demand could not be fulfilled by revisionist no. 1, opposite party no. 2 and his family members beaten her on 15.09.2003. When the said fact was known to parents of revisionist no. 1, they complained in police and on his complain, opposite party no. 2 and his family members requested to pardon them and made promise that they would not do any act of harassment against her. The revisionist no. 1 was again beaten by opposite party no. 2 and his mother on 05.05.2004 and they threw-out her from their house. She reached her parents’ house and she was hospitalized in Vardan Nursing Home, where a girl child Sukaina @ Zahra Rizvi was born. The opposite party no. 2 was not providing any maintenance, therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance.

3. The opposite party no. 2 filed objection before the court below and denied the incident dated 26.11.2003 and stated that she has not produced any evidence regarding that incident. He further stated that he had borne the expenditure of Nursing Home at the time of birth of his daughter. He further stated that the revisionist no. 1 is graduate and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month from tuition. He further stated that the father of revisionist no. 1 is a gazetted officer and he is receiving salary at Rs. 40,000/- and her mother is also a teacher in primary school and her salary is Rs. 22,000/- per month. It was also stated that the financial position of revisionist no. 1 is strong, therefore, there is no occasion to provide her maintenance as she can maintain herself.

4. After hearing both parties, the judgment has been passed on 22.05.2018 and the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by revisionist no. 1, has been dismissed. However, the application in respect of revisionist no. 2 has been allowed and Rs. 5,000/- per month has been awarded as interim maintenance. Hence, the present revision has been filed by the revisionists.

5. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for the revisionists, Sri Diwakar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

6. Learned couns