The court considered the income and circumstances of the parties in determining the maintenance amount under Section 125 of the Code, emphasizing the purpose of preventing vagrancy and destitution.

JUDGMENT :

The present revisions is preferred against the order dated 23.07.2016, passed in Criminal Case No. 81 of 2013, Smt. Ujma Siddhique & Another Vs. Harun Rashid, by the court of Family Judge, Nainital (“the case”). By the impugned judgment and order, an application filed by respondent no.1 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter, respondent no.2, has been allowed. The revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife, the respondent no.1, and Rs. 5,000/- per month to his daughter, the respondent no.2.

2. Facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows. The respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 125 of the Code, seeking maintenance for herself and her daughter from the revisionist. The revisionist and the respondent no.1 were married on 23.07.2011. The respondent no.1 has already lost her parents. After marriage, according to the application, the respondent no.1 was harassed physically and mentally for the demand of dowry. The revisionist was working in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, as a teacher. When the respondent no.1 gave birth to her daughter, the respondent no.2, she was not taken care of by any of her in-laws. She was ill-treated and expelled from the matrimonial house. She was staying in her parental house. But, again she joined the company of her husband on 16.12.2012. The revisionist returned to his job in Abu Dhabi. The respondent no.1 was further harassed. She was expelled from her matrimonial house on 23.03.2012. She was beaten and abused before her expulsion. Since then, she has been staying in her parental house. According to the application, the revisionist has been earning Rs.80,000/- per month, as his salary, as a Physical Training Instructor in a school and he also earns Rs.20,000/- from his property at Bareilly, whereas, it is submitted that the respondent no. 1 is not able to maintain herself.

3. The revisionist objected to the application and denied all the allegations with regard to harassment and dowry. According to the revisionist, he wanted to take the respondent no. 1 along with him to Abu Dhabi, but she was not ready for it. It is the case of the revisionist that the respondent no.1 has been staying away without any reasonable cause. In his objections, the revisionist denied the allegation of his income as averred by the respondent no.1. According to him, somehow he could maintain his mother and himself. According to the revisionist, the respondent no.1 is able to maintain herself.

4. Both the parties adduced evidence in the case. By the impugned judgment and order, the application under Section 125 of the Code has been allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance as stated hereinabove.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that the respondent no.1 has been staying away without any reasonable cause; the respondent no.1 has also filed an FIR under Section 498 A IPC, in which after trial, the revisionist has already been acquitted. The court did not find substance in the averments made by the respondent no.1. The averments of cruelty, as stated in the instant application under Section 125 of the Code as well as in the FIR lodged by the respondent no.1, under Section 498 A IPC were identical. Not only this, it is also argued that, in fact, the respondent no.1 has also filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“the Act”) on the similar grounds. But, it has also been rejected. Copies of both these decisions have been filed, which reveals that such decisions were given in Criminal Crime No. 498 A IPC and under the provisions of the Act in sometime, in the year 2019.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist also raised the following points:-

(i) The revisionist also maintains his mother, but this fact has not been considered