KRISHNA DAS Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision is directed against the judgment and order dtd. 8/12/2023, passed by learned Judge, Family Court, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.98 of 2020, Smt. Sanjana Das and others Vs. Krishnpad Das, whereby court below partly allowed the application filed by respondents for maintenance under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C.

(2.) Facts in a nutshell are that marriage between the revisionist and respondent no.2 took place on April 3rd, 2006, according to Hindu/Bengali customs. After lapse of time, after the marriage, two children were born to the revisionist and respondent no.2. Revisionist and his family members began taunting respondent no.2 for bringing insufficient dowry and demanded an Apache motorcycle as dowry. Because respondent no.2 could not fulfill the demand for an Apache motorcycle, revisionist and his family members physically assaulted respondent no.2 and expelled her from their home on January 24, 2020. On the same day, January 24, 2020, the respondent no.2 somehow managed to reach her parental home. When respondent no.2 narrated her ordeal to her family, her father, seeing her condition, took her to a government hospital in Sitarganj for treatment on January 24, 2020. Since the day the respondent no.2 was expelled from the house her in-laws have made no inquiries about her. Seeing no other option, respondent no.2 filed an application before the learned Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C. before learned Judge, Family Court, Khatima, Udham Singh Nagar, seeking maintenance amounting to ?7,000/- per month from the revisionist. Learned Judge vide its judgment and order dtd. 8/12/2023, directed the revisionist-husband to pay an amount of ?5,000/-, per month, for the maintenance of respondent no.2 from the date of filing of the application till the 10th date of each month. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the revisionist is before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the order of maintenance passed by learned Judge is passed without taking into consideration the ratio of income of the revisionist-husband and has directed him to pay excessive amount as maintenance to the respondent no.2-wife, which is illegal and improper as the revisionist-husband has not much to give from his income at present.