IMPORTANT POINT
The husband has a social, moral, and legal duty to maintain his wife and children, and maintenance should be sufficient to enable them to lead a life with dignity and decorum.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Sri Jainendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Vijai Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.

2. By means of this instant criminal revision, the revisionist has assailed the impugned judgement and order dated 04.08.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-III, Jaunpur, in Petition No. 666 of 2019, Jyoti Kumari and Another Vs. Ashish Jaiswal.

3. By the impugned judgement and order, the trial court has granted Rs.3,000/-per month to opposite party no. 2, Jyoti Kumari and Rs.2,000/-per month to her minor daughter, Niyati from the date of filing of application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. unless they become disqualified for getting maintenance.

4. Averment has been made by learned counsel for the revisionist that the trial court has passed the impugned judgement and order against the provisions of law and without proper appreciation of evidence on record. It has next been submitted that since the opposite party no. 2, Smt. Jyoti Kumari was voluntarily and without any reason residing away from the revisionist, she is not entitled for maintenance. It has also been submitted that as per ultrasound report of opposite party no. 2, she was pregnant before her marriage with the revisionist and opposite party no. 3, Niyati, daughter of opposite party no. 2, was not born from their wedlock, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance from him.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the trial court has passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statutory law applicable to the case as interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court. There is no illegality and irregularity in the impugned order. It has next been submitted that due to the harassment of opposite party no. 2 by the revisionist and his family members for obtaining additional dowry, opposite party no. 2 is living separately from the revisionist with her daughter at her parental home. No maintenance is being provided by the revisionist to them. The revisionist has neither pleaded in his written statement filed against the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. nor in his evidence, oral or documentary adduced in support of his written statement that opposite party no. 3 is not born from his wedlock with opposite party no. 2, Smt. Jyoti Kumari. Therefore, at the stage of revision, such plea cannot be entertained and they shall not be taken into consideration.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been heard. Perused the evidence available on the record of the revision including the impugned order passed by the trial court.

7. From the pleadings of revisionist and opposite party no. 2 in Petition No. 666 of 2019 u/s 125 Cr.P.C., it transpires that admittedly opposite party no. 2, Smt. Jyoti Kumari was married to revisionist, Ashish Jaiswal on 18.11.2017 according to Hindu rites and customs. The mother of opposite party no. 2 gave sufficient cash and other items as dowry to the revisionist according to her status. The revisionist and his parents were not satisfied with the dowry brought by opposite party no. 2. They started physically and mentally torturing her to compel her to bring Rs.2,00,000/-as additional dowry. On 21.08.2018, from the wedlock of revisionist and opposite party no. 2, a daughter, namely, Niyati was born. On the birth of the daughter, revisionist and his family members became annoyed with her and on 28.08.2019, after beating, abusing and depriving her from her stridhan, sent her to her parental home. Since then opposite party no. 2 is living with her daughter at her parental home. Opposite party no. 2 is a domestic woman and has no skills which may enable her to earn enough for her and for her maintenance as well as of her daughter. The husband of opposite party no. 2 is engaged in the wholesale business of scrap items from which he earns about Rs.50,000/-per m