AKHLESH KUMAR VAIDHYA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 3.7.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 338 of 2017 (Smt. Neelu and Others Vs. Akhlesh) under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Babina, District Jhansi, whereby application for interim maintenance in aforesaid case has been allowed and awarded Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- for wife Smt. Neelu / opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 5000/- for her son Dhairya / opposite party no. 3) per month as maintenance to opposite party no. 2 and 3.

(2.) The facts of this revision emerges as such that opposite party no. 2 / Smt. Neelu has filed an application before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi on 1.7.2017 under section 125 Cr.P.C. with submission that revisionist / Akhlesh Kumar Vaidhya and opposite party no. 2 have got marriage on 4.7.2013 according to Hindu rituals and rites. At the time of said marriage, on demand of family members of the revisionist, father of opposite party no. 2 had given Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs), gold, silver and other household articles. During substantiate of this wedlock, one male child namely, Dhairya, born in October, 2014. After some time the revisionist and his family members continuously harassing opposite party no. 2 on account of additional demand of dowry. Being aggrieved with torture of the revisionist and his family members, opposite party no. 2 has left her matrimonial house and since then she is living at her parental home. Opposite party no. 2 has lodged first information report under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 3 / 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on 13.5.2017 at Police Station Babina, District Jhansi against the revisionist and his family members. Opposite party no. 2 has filed an application before the family court, Jhansi on 1.7.2017 under section 125 Cr.P.C. with allegation that she is a household lady and unable to maintain herself and her son so she claims for maintenance of Rs. 1,00,000/- for herself and Rs. 50,000/- for her son / opposite party no. 3. During pendecy of this application before the family court an application for interim maintenance was also filed by the opposite party no. 2 on 7.4.2018 before the family court. Revisionist has filed an objection against the interim maintenance in which he has stated that he is now unemployed and out of job and anyhow he is surviving his life. After hearing both the party, by means of an order dated 3.7.2018, learned Family Court, Jhansi awarded interim maintenance to opposite party no. 2 and 3 as aforesaid and being aggrieved by order of the family court, this revision has been filed by the revisionist.

(3.) I have heard Sri Devi Prasad Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Babul Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 as well as the learned A.G.A.