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 claim, wife's destitution.

JUDGMENT :

JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

1. List revised. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2 despite service of notice whereas learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State are present.

2. The instant criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the impugned judgement and order dated 10.05.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonebhadra in Misc. Case No. 592 of 2019, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. ( Neelam Kumari Vs. Arvind Kumar, Police Station – Karma, District – Sonebhadra whereby learned Principal Judge, Family Court, has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to his wife/opposite party no. 2 towards her maintenance from the date of filing of application.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with opposite party no. 2 on 14.04.2019 according to Hindu rites and rituals and his father-in-law had given Rs. 50000/-, motor cycle, some ornaments and household articles. After 10 days of marriage his father-in-law died due to an electric shock. Opposite party no. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on 25.11.2019 with the allegation that her husband (revisionist) and his relatives demanded a buffalo, a golden chain, LCD TV etc. Thereafter her father came with some relatives to discuss and sort out the matter but it is alleged that revisionist and his family continued physical and mental torture on opposite party no. 2 for additional dowry. It is also alleged by opposite party no. 2 that her husband (revisionist) used to consume lilquor and misbehave with her alongwith his friends.

4. It is further submitted that opposite party no. 2 made allegation against her husband (revisionist) that he called her brother and sent her back to her house on 13.08.2019 retaining all her clothes and jewellery and saying that if the demand was not fulfilled, they would not bring her back home.

5. It is also alleged by opposite party no. 2 that she is living at her parental house and is dependent on her father who is a poor man and unable to maintain her and she herself also has no means of income. It is further stated by opposite party no. 2 that the revisionist owns agricultural land and also runs phtotostat and mobile shops and his annual income from these resoruces is around Rs. 2,50,000/-.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submitted that the revisionist/opponent (in his objection as. 15-A) has accepted that opposite party no.2 is his legally wedded wife. He further stated that he never harassed the opposite party no.2 (wife) for dowry. The opposite party no.2 was not maintaining matrimonial life with her husband and she herself was not willing to live with him and she herself left her matrimonial home and went to her parental home of her own wish. He stated that opposite party no. 2 was avoiding to maintain physical relationship with him claiming that she had menstruation problem. When the revisionist asked her to use pregnancy kit, it revealed that she was pregnant. Being shocked, when the revisionist asked about the pregnancy, opposite party no. 2 told him that she had an illicit relationship with his Jija, prior to marriage and she became pregnant from this relationship. Even then the revisionist was ready to live with her but she refused. Thereafter the revisionist filed Divorce Petition in court where again she refused to live with him. He further stated that he earns his livelihood by doing work of