Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.
Smt. Jamuna And Others – Revisionist
Versus
State Of U.P. And Another - Opposite Parties
Criminal Revision No. 3977 Of 2022
Decided On : 20-03-2024
Section 125 Cr.P.C. - Maintenance - Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India - Article 39 of the Constitution of India - [Section 125 Cr.P.C.] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and the constitutional provisions under Article 15(3) and Article 39 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the positive role of the State in fostering change towards the empowerment of women and the enactment of maintenance laws as a measure of social justice to provide financial support to dependant wives and children.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionists filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance allowance, alleging harassment and demand for dowry by the husband and in-laws. The trial court rejected the application, stating that the revisionist was residing with her mother-in-law and that the husband provided expenses to his wife and minor children.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revisionist was harassed for additional dowry, expelled from her matrimonial house, and living separately with her daughters, bearing their expenses from her own earnings and money provided by her mother.
Issues: The main issue was whether the revisionist was entitled to maintenance allowance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. based on the allegations of harassment and demand for dowry by the husband and in-laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revisionist was entitled to maintenance allowance as the evidence supported her allegations of harassment and expulsion from her matrimonial house, and she was living separately, bearing the expenses of herself and her daughters.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal revision, directing the husband to provide maintenance allowance to the revisionists until the remarriage of the wife and until the daughters attain the age of majority, in accordance with the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C.
JUDGMENT :
By means of the instant criminal revision, revisionists have assailed the judgement and order dated 12.07.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Lalitpur in Case No.49 of 2016 (Smt. Jamuna and others vs. Akhlesh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
2. By the impugned order, trial Court has rejected the application of the revisionists filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that revisionist no.1 along with her two daughters are residing with her mother-in-law and opposite party No.2 (husband) has given expenses to his wife and two minor children.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists that marriage of the revisionist No.1 (Smt. Jamuna) was solemnized with opposite party No.2 (Akhilesh) on 26.06.2007 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. In the said marriage, parents of the revisionist No.1 had given sufficient dowry according to their capacity. The opposite party No.2 (husband) and in-laws of the revisionist No.1 were not satisfied with the dowry given to them in the marriage and they demanded Rs.1,50,000/-, but on non-fulfilment of the additional dowry, they mentally and physically tortured revisionist no. 1. Out of wedlock of the revisionist No.1 and opposite party No.2, two female children were born, namely, Km. Lali, aged about 12 years and Km. Kiriti, aged about 10 years. After the birth of two female children, husband and in-laws of the revisionist No.1 intensified their harassment for bringing of Rs.1,50,000/- as additional dowry and they also started beating and threatening for divorce. It has also been submitted that opposite party No.2 is a good confectioner and earns Rs.30,000/- per month by taking contract in marriages and other functions. It has also been submitted that revisionist No.1 has claimed Rs.15,000/- per month for herself and Rs.4000/- per month each for her two minor daughters as maintenance allowance.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has opposed the prayer of the revisionists and submitted that trial court has passed the impugned order on evidence on record and there is no illegality in the impugned order.
5. In the written statement opposite party No.2 (husband) has admitted his marriage with revisionist No.1 and also admitted that two daughters were born out of their wedlock, but he has denied that revisionist No.1 was harassed and pressurised to bring Rs. 1,50,000/- in dowry. Opposite party No.2 also denied that he is confectioner and earns Rs.30,000/- per month from his professional work. He also admitted that he is a labour and earns Rs.100-150/- per day as remuneration and revisionist No.1 earns about Rs.15,000/- per month from tailoring and embroidery and she is residing along with her two daughters in his house.
6. Heard Sri Jaysingh Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Ved Prakash Ojha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
7. Factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that marriage of the revisionist No.1 (Smt. Jamuna) was solemnized with opposite party No.2 (Akhilesh) on 26.06.2007 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. In the said marriage, parents of the revisionist No.1 had given sufficient dowry according to their capacity. The opposite party No.2 (husband) and in-laws of the revisionist No.1 were not satisfied with the dowry given to them in the marriage and they demanded Rs.1,50,000/-, but on non-fulfilment of the additional dowry, they started torturing revisionist No.1 both mentally and physically. Out of wedlock of the revisionist No.1 and opposite party No.2, two female children were born, namely, Km. Lali and Km. Kiriti. After the birth of two female children, husband and in-law of the revisionist No.1 intensified their harassment for bringing of Rs.1,50,000/- as additional dowry and they also started beating and threatening for divorce. It has also been submitted that opposite party No.2 is a good confectioner and earns Rs.30,000/- per month by taking contract in marriages
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the revisionist to maintenance allowance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. based on the allegations of harassment and demand for dowry b....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the husband's obligation to maintain his wife under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to prevent destitution and vagrancy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide speedy relief by way of maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself and her child....
Wife entitled to maintenance under Section 125 CrPC where husband fails to prove adultery or unjust refusal to cohabit; award upheld based on evidence of husband's business/land income contra labour ....
The obligation of a husband to maintain his wife and children is not negated by claims of financial constraints, and maintenance laws are enacted for social justice to prevent dependents from falling....
The husband is bound to maintain his wife, and the court can determine the maintenance amount based on the husband's earning capacity.
The court upheld the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and emphasized the husband's obligation to maintain his wife and minor daughter.
Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is available to revisionist once she had taken resort to proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
A husband is obligated to provide maintenance to his wife regardless of his income status, and claims of adultery must be substantiated with evidence.
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
