The court affirmed the entitlement of a spouse to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code, emphasizing the need for support when one party has sufficient means and the other cannot maintain themselves.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order dated 25.02.2023, passed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 06 of 2018, Smt. Komal Bora v. Manoj Singh Syunari, by the court of Judge, Family Court, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar (“the case”), by which the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 8,000/- per month to the respondent no. 1 as maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”).

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

3. The case is based on an application moved by the private respondent under Section 125 of the Code. According to it, the parties were married on 30.11.2017; the revisionist was staying in Bangalore and working there; after marriage, the private respondent joined the company of the revisionist in Bangalore; twenty-one days thereafter, the in-laws of the private respondent also reached there; the revisionist and other in-laws of the private respondent harassed and tortured her for and in connection with the demand of dowry; she was disrobed also; her mobile was taken; the private respondent informed this incident to the police, but the matter was then settled.

4. It has been the case of the private respondent that, in fact, the revisionist did conceal his earlier marriage with another woman; he had divorced that woman. According to the private respondent, on 03.02.2018, she was beaten up by the revisionist and his parents; the matter was reported to the police; on that the private respondent stayed in some Mahila Ashram; she informed the incident to her brother; when the brother and the brother-in-law of the private respondents reached Bangalore, they were also abused and the private respondent was expelled from her matrimonial home on 08.02.2018; since then, the private respondent is staying in her parents’ house. The incident dated 13.10.2018 has also been reported by the private respondent. On that date, the revisionist and his family members had come to the paternal home of the private respondent and pressurized her to divorce the revisionist; the private respondent is unable to maintain herself, whereas the revisionist works as an Assistant Manager in State Bank of India in Bangalore and gets Rs. 50,000/- per month as salary.

5. The revisionist did file his objections to the application filed by the private respondent under Section 125 of the Code. He admitted the marriage, but, according to him, the marriage was without any dowry. All the allegations levelled by the private respondent have been denied. It has been the case of the revisionist that in the midnight of 03.02.2018, the private respondent, in fact, took a fight with the parents of the revisionist; the matter was reported to the police on 04.02.2018; thereafter a compromise was entered into between the parties. The revisionist has also denied the allegation with regard to his earlier marriage. He has also denied the allegation levelled by the private respondent for any alleged incident of 13.10.2018. It has been the case of the revisionist that he has filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights; he wants to keep his family together.

6. In evidence, the private respondent appeared herself as PW 1 and her mother Deepa Bora was also examined as PW 2. The revisionist did file an affidavit in his examination-in-chief but he did not appear for cross-examination. Therefore, the examination-in-chief of the revisionist cannot be read into evidence.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that, in fact, the suit for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the HM Act”) filed by the revisionist has been decreed on 15.07.2023 and the appli