MUKESH CHAND VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision under Section 397/401 Cr. P.C. is directed against the order dated 2 -6 -2001 passed by the Principal Judge/Family Court, Meerut.

(2.) IT is alleged by the opposite party No. 2 that she was married to the revisionist in the year 1995 and as per their status her parents solemnized this marriage to the satisfaction of everybody. Subsequently, there was demand of dowry, which culminated into some dispute between the parties. It is alleged that his wife fell ill and she was admitted to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Hospital, Delhi. The revisionist/husband left her in the hospital and came back. After she got recovered from her illness, the opposite -party Smt. Kiran Lata went to her parents' place. Since the parents of the opposite -party/wife were also not financially sound she shifted to the house of her maternal uncle at Meerut. As she was not able to maintain herself and her one child borne out of the wedlock with revisionist, she preferred a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C. before the Judge Family Court, Meerut. The petition was contested by the revisionist and he filed a reply to the claim of maintenance. Parties led evidence in the case and after considering the whole material and upon hearing the parties, the Judge Family Court found that the petitioner for substantial cause had left her husband's home in Delhi and she in order to maintain herself and the child was entitled for the award of maintenance. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed and monthly maintenance of Rs. 400 each to the wife and child, Nishant (petitioner and her son) was awarded. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order passed by the Court below this revision has been preferred.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist contended that the petition was not maintainable in the Court at Meerut as the petitioner was a resident of Delhi and her child and parents are also residing therewith her. This point of objection was raised also before the Court below in which on the basis of material/evidence available on record it is held that the petitioner shifted from Delhi to Meerut and she resided with her maternal uncle and she filed the petition there and as such petition was maintainable before the Judge Family Court, Meerut. This finding is finding of fact and it does not warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. However, when it is apparent that at the time when the petition was presented before the Judge Family Court, Meerut, the petitioner was residing at Meerut with her maternal uncle, the Court below does not appear to have erred in recording a finding of fact that the petition was maintainable and cognizable in that Court at Meerut.