SANDEEP TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dtd. 28/2/2017 passed by the Additional Principal Judge Family Court / Additional District Sessions Judge / Fast Track Court No. 1, Varanasi in Case No. 341 of 2013 (Smt. Geetanjali Mishra Vs. Sandeep Tripathi), under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C, Police Station Sigra, District Varanasi, whereby, the application of the opposite party No. 2 has been allowed by the said court and it has been ordered that the revisionist shall pay her Rs.6000.00 per month as maintenance to be paid by the 7th of each month.

(2.) An application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. dtd. 3/8/2013 was filed by Smt. Geetanjali Mishra / opposite party No. 2 against the revisionist Sandeep Tripathi before the Principal Judge / Family Court, Varanasi with the prayer that she may be granted Rs.30,000.00 per month as maintenance from the date of the filing of the application i.e. 3/8/2013. The same was supported by an affidavit of the opposite party No. 2 herself which is also dtd. 3/8/2013. The marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with the Smt. Geetanjali Mishra / opposite party No. 2 as per the Hindu customs and rituals on 6/3/2011. Some dispute arose between the couple on which she left her matrimonial house after a panchayat in May, 2011 and started living in her maternal house till May 2012. Thereafter, her husband came to her maternal house in July,2012 and again raised the demand for dowry which had been continuing since before. She states that the income of her husband from his salary, agricultural land, landed property is about Rs.80,000.00 per moth and he is the only son of his parents and a such, he is having no liability. She has demanded Rs.30,000.00 per month as maintenance from the revisionist as she is not able to maintain herself and has no income.

(3.) The application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. was contested by the revisionist who moved a written statement / objection and stated that the opposite party No. 2 is engaged in the work of teaching and is a well qualified person having studied M.A., B.Ed and as such was qualified to the extent that she could easily maintain herself. It is further stated that she is working in a private institute. It is stated that the father and mother of the revisionist are old aged persons, bed ridden, ill and are on medication. It is stated that he was working in a private company and getting a salary of Rs.10,800.00 only and has been terminated on 3/9/2013 and as such the application be rejected.