LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-31

ABHIMANU PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U.P.

Decided On December 14, 2020
Abhimanu Pandey Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 14.5.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Criminal Case No. 313 of 2017 (Smt. Priyanka Pandey Vs. Abhimanu Pandey) under section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby application of maintenance of respondent no. 2 has been allowed and the present revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 19,000/- per month from the date of order to respondent no. 2 as her maintenance on 11th day of each month.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this revision are that the revisionist and respondent no. 2, Smt. Priyanka Pandey, got married on 9.7.2008 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and at the time of said marriage, father of respondent no. 2 has given Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash to the family of revisionist as dowry. After some time on 28.4.2012, a baby boy namely, Abhiraj, born out of the said wedlock. For certain reasons, relationship between husband and wife becomes strained and due to harassment and additional demand of dowry, revisionist as well as family member of revisionist left respondent no. 2 at her paternal house. So respondent no. 2 has filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. for her maintenance alleging that revisionist has refused to maintain her. Learned Family Court after taking evidence of both the sides, on 14.5.2019 passed an order in favour of respondent no. 2, awarding Rs. 19,000/- as maintenance to the respondent no. 2. Being aggrieved with the said order, this revision has been filed by the revisionist against respondent no. 2.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist stated that marriage of revisionist and respondent no. 2 namely, Smt. Priyanka Pandey, was solemnized on 9.7.2018 according to Hindu rites and rituals in very simple manner and there were no demand of dowry by revisionist or his family members. After marriage, bidai of respondent no. 2 was held in 2010 and after a short period of living with respondent no. 2, the revisionist came to know that she is very outrageous, open minded and was not willing to co-ordinate with family members of revisionist. Revisionist tried his best to understand respondent no. 2 but she always refuses. On 28.4.2012 a baby boy namely, Abhiraj, born out of the said wedlock, who was suffered from Cerebral Palsy (hereinafter referred as C.P. child). Father of revisionist died in the year of 2013 and mother died in the year 2014. The revisionist, being eldest in the family was left by his parents with liability of his two sisters and one brother. Revisionist arranged marriage of his sister in which he spent about Rs. 24,00,000/- (Twenty Four Lacs) as well as he has taken a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) from a co-operative society for marriage of her sister, which is still being paid monthly from salary of revisionist by means of installments of Rs. 22,880/- per month. Revisionist is a Development Officer in LIC and his salary is approximately Rs. 58,000/- in hand per month. Revisionist is only earning member of his family and there are liability of his second sister namely, Km. Nisha Pandey, and his C.P. child son namely, Abhiraj, whose treatment is going on in Apolo Hospital, Delhi. Due to illness of his son, revisionist is facing huge medical expenditure. It is also submitted that on 2.9.2015, respondent no. 2 left her in-laws house and went back to her parental house with clothes and jewellery leaving behind her mentally challenged son. Revisionist tried his best to pacify his matrimonial dispute and also filed a case for restitution of husband and wife under section 5 of The Hindu Marriage Act in which respondent no. 2 willfully commit default and never appeared before the court. Respondent no. 2 also lodged a criminal case under section 498-A I.P.C. and 3 /4 of D.P. Act at Mahila Police Station, Gorakhpur in which the Investigating Officer filed final report in favour of the revisionist. Respondent no. 2 also filed a case against the revisionist under Domestic Violence Act before the District and Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, which is still pending.