Court No. - 2 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1809 of 2020 Revisionist :- Narendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jayant Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

List revised.

None appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

By the instant revision, the revisionist seeks the following relief:

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present criminal revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 28.01.2020 passed by learned Ist. Additional Chief Family Judge Family Court, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar passed in Case No. 43 of 2019 (Gayatri Vs. Narendra) under section 125 of Cr.P.C.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 28.01.2020, during the pendency of the present criminal revision."

An application came to be filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the opposite party no. 2 claiming maintenance from the revisionist. The case set up by the opposite party no. 2, briefly stated, is that the parties contracted marriage on 24 April 2018, under Hindu rites and customs. The revisionist is working as an assistant teacher and draws salary at Rs. 45,000/- per month, he has additional income from agricultural property.

It is further stated that after marriage the revisionist and in-laws subjected the opposite party no. 2 to harassment and torture for demand of dowry (Swift Dzire car) and thretend that she would be set ablaze. Thereafter, the opposite party no. 2 was beaten and thrown out of the matrimonial home on 13 January 2019 in the clothes she was wearing. She lodged a complaint which came to be registered as Case Crime No. 43 of 2019 under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. She was medically examined on the subsequent day of the injury caused to her.

The revisionist appeared and contested the application alleging that the opposite party no. 2 stayed for four days after marriage, thereafter, she left the matrimonial home. She is B.Sc. and B.Ed., takes private tuition and earns Rs. 20,000/- per month. She is capable of maintaining herself. The extract of whatsapp chat of the revisionist with the sister (Sadhna) of the opposite party no. 2 was placed before the court below and heavily relied upon by the learned counsel, which reads as follows: "Humko Yesa nhi feel hona chahiye ki kahi Maine uski shadi krk Kuchh galat to nhi kiya ......

Uski shadi mein koi ruchi nhi thi"

The court below upon considering the rival contention and the statement of the witnesses came to the conclusion that the opposite party no. 2 left the matrimonial home for valid and justifiable reasons, she was subjected to harassment and torture for dowry; the revisionist admitted that he is employed as assistant teacher and earns at Rs. 45000/- per month; he has additional income from agricultural property. Revisionist, however, stated that he has to take care of his aged parents and incurs other expenses towards insurance etc. Therefore, he is left with insufficient money per month. The court came to the conclusion that the opposite party no. 2 is entitled to maintenance from the date of order at Rs. 6000/- per month The only ground pressed by learned counsel for the revisionist is that the opposite party no. 2 has left the matrimonial home without any sufficient reason and she refused to live with her husband, wife in such circumstances would not be entitled to receive the allowance for maintenance or an interim measure.

It is submitted that the court below had ignored the whatsapp massage/chat between the revisionist and the sister of the opposite party no. 2. It is urged that the opposite party no. 2 was never interested in marriage, therefore, she left the matrimonial home immediately after the marriage; the criminal case set up is false and malicious to make out a case for living separately.

On specific query, learned counsel for the r