MANOJ KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. KALPANA TRIPATHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment dated 13.2.2008 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No.72 of 2007, Smt. Kalpana Vs. Manoj under section 125 Cr.P.C.. Fortunately in the instant case most of the facts are admitted. It is admitted fact that the revisionist had married opposite party no.1 and out of this wedlock two sons were born who are opposite party nos. 2 & 3. It is also admitted that the revisionist and opposite party no.1 are living separately from each other since long and opposite party nos. 2 & 3 are living with their mother. As per records opposite party no.1 was married to the revisionist on 6.7.1994 in Kota Rajasthan. The revisionist was posted as Assistant Process Chemist in Darula Organic Company, Meerut. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 had come alongwith him to Meerut and they started living together. Opposite party no.1 was shocked when she came to know that the revisionist was a patient of Schizophrenia and this fact was concealed by him and his family members before the marriage. Due to this mental disorder the revisionist regularly misbehaved with opposite party no.1 and often assaulted her. Opposite party no.1 tolerated all his misbehaviour and during the passage of time opposite party nos. 2 & 3 were born. In the meantime opposite party no.1 continued her studies and managed to get a teaching job in a college. There was noThis revision has been filed by the revisionist against the judgment dated 13.2.2008 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No.72 of 2007, Smt. Kalpana Vs. Manoj under section 125 Cr.P.C.. Fortunately in the instant case most of the facts are admitted. It is admitted fact that the revisionist had married opposite party no.1 and out of this wedlock two sons were born who are opposite party nos. 2 & 3. It is also admitted that the revisionist and opposite party no.1 are living separately from each other since long and opposite party nos. 2 & 3 are living with their mother. As per records opposite party no.1 was married to the revisionist on 6.7.1994 in Kota Rajasthan. The revisionist was posted as Assistant Process Chemist in Darula Organic Company, Meerut. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 had come alongwith him to Meerut and they started living together. Opposite party no.1 was shocked when she came to know that the revisionist was a patient of Schizophrenia and this fact was concealed by him and his family members before the marriage. Due to this mental disorder the revisionist regularly misbehaved with opposite party no.1 and often assaulted her. Opposite party no.1 tolerated all his misbehaviour and during the passage of time opposite party nos. 2 & 3 were born. In the meantime opposite party no.1 continued her studies and managed to get a teaching job in a college. There was no change in the attitude and behaviour of the revisionist towards opposite party no.1. A time came when it became impossible for opposite party no.1 to live with the revisionist and as a consequence, due to his inhuman behaviour, opposite party no.1 left the house of the revisionist alongwith her two sons. She got another job in Mussorie and at present she is teaching there in some school.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No.2 filed a divorce petition before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, which was registered there as Case No.56 of 2007, Smt. Kalpana Tripathi Vs. Manoj Kumar Tripathi under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. She also filed in the same Court another case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was registered there as Case No.72 of 2007.

(3.) FROM the side of the revisionist my attention has been drawn towards the case laws reported in 1995 (25) ALR 502, Arvind Kumar Verma Vs. Smt.Suman. In this case this Court has held that the evidence of witnesses of fact in a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. has to be recorded either by the Judge himself or caused to be recorded by him and a memorandum of the substance be signed by the witnesses and the Judge. It has been further held in this case that if the evidence is of a formal character it can be taken on affidavit but on the application of any of the parties the Family Court may summon and examine any such person as to the facts contained in his affidavit. In this case this Court has dealt with Sections 15 and 16 of the Family Court Act, 1984 and Section 125 Cr.P.C. Other rulings which have been cited from the side of the revisionist are 1982 Cr.L.J. 1460, Bombay High Court, Ramesh Laxman Contractor Vs. Mrs.Jayshreeben Ramesh Contractor and another, II (1993) DMC 197(DB), Karnataka High Court, Gayithri Vs. Ramesh and I (1998) DMC 148 (FB), Kerala High Court, Satyabhama Vs. Rama Chandran. On the other hand from the side of the opposite parties my attention has been drawn towards the matters reported in 2005 (2) AWC (2093), Allahabad High Court, Amar Nath Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & another, 1998(1) AWC 275, Allahabad High Court (DB), Smt.Guru Bachan Kaur Vs. Preetam Singh and 1998 (3) AWC 1740, Allahabad High Court (D.B.) Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay Vs. Family Judge, Family Court, Varanasi and another.