RADHESHYAM JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision preferred under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C. r/w Sec. 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dtd. 14/6/2023 passed by Judge, Family Court-I, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Criminal Case No.158 of 2016, Smt. Rajeshwari Joshi and others vs. Shri Radheshyam Joshi, under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. whereby revisionist-husband was directed to pay Rs.18,000.00 per month to respondent no.2-Smt. Rajeshwari Joshi (wife), Rs.4,000.00 per month to respondent no.3-Km. Jyoti (daughter) from the date of application till 12/7/2018 when she began working and earned sufficient income to maintain herself and Rs.6,000.00 per month to the respondent no.4-Km. Tanuja (daughter) till she gets married.

(2.) Facts in nutshell are that an application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. was moved by respondent no.2-wife stating therein that the marriage of respondent no.2 and revisionist was solemnized in the April, 1990 and out of the said wedlock, three daughters were born. After marriage, when the revisionist-husband was away for his Indian Army duty, his brother, namely, Dinesh Chandra Joshi attempted to sexually assault her and harassed her when she resisted. The revisionist-husband was informed about the behavior of his brother, but he told respondent no.2 not to lodge any complaint against him. Thereafter, respondent no.2-wife lived with the revisionist-husband in government quarter for a year, but was sent back to his ancestral home and her brother-in-law again tried to molest her. Then, respondent no.2-wife returned to her parents' house due to severe harassment. It is further stated in the application that the relations of respondent no.2 and revisionist remained normal for 7-8 years during which the daughters were born; revisionist's brother and his wife instigated the revisionist against respondent no.2. The revisionist began physically and mentally harassing respondent no.2, stopped providing maintenance and taunted his daughters due to which, their eldest daughter, namely, Sunita committed suicide in 2012 by consuming poison. Respondent no.2 lived in the hope that with the passage of time, there will be some positive change in the behaivour of the revisionist, but his behavior remained unchanged. Thereafter, revisionist has not paid maintenance and he also pressured the respondent no.2 to transfer a plot of land given to her by her family into his name. It is also stated in the application that respondent no.3, namely, Km. Jyoti is pursuing a B. Pharma course and respondent no.4-Km. Tanuja has completed her intermediate examination and respondent no.2 is struggling financially for maintaining herself and her daughters by taking loans and from Rs.6,000.00 per month in the house rent. Revisionist is a retired J.C.O. in the Indian Army and gets Rs.50,000.00 per month pension. He also earns Rs.10,000.00 per month from 9 bighas of agricultural land. Furthermore, he also owns three plots in Rudrapur. Thus, respondent no.2 sought Rs.20,000.00 per month as maintenance for herself and Rs.20,000.00 per month for maintenance of respondent nos.3 and 4. On the said application, respondent-husband filed his objection. The trial court by reason of order dtd. 14/6/2023 has allowed the application and directed the revisionist-husband to pay a sum of Rs.18,000.00 per month to the respondent no.2-wife, Rs.4,000.00 per month to respondent no.3 and Rs.6,000.00per month to respondent no.4 as stated in para 1 of this judgment. Assailing the said order, revisionist-husband has come before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that trial court has awarded the amount of maintenance without considering the facts available on record. He further submits that the trial court has also ignored this aspect that respondent no.2 could not prove any valid and cogent reason to desert her husband i.e. revisionist and solely rely on the oral statements of respondent no.2.