MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 5.5.2008 rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, (Court No. 3), Bijnor on the application of the wife of the Revisionist arrayed as Respondent No. 2 in the instant revision, purported to be under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (In short the Code) whereby the learned Magistrate has ordered payment of monthly allowances of Rs. 1,500/- for the maintenance of the wife and Rs. 1,000/- for the maintenance of the minor son, is impugned in this Revision.

(2.) Filtering out unnecessary details, the facts leading to the filling of this revision are that the marriage between the Revisionist and the Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 10.6.1989 according to the Hindu rites and rituals. From the said wedlock, a male child viz. Prashant Kumar was born, who was about 10 year at the time of filing the application. Unfortunately, their marriage wrecked on the bedrock of estranged relations. The allegations substantially in the application for maintenance by the wife are that her husband and her in-laws ill-treated her and subjected her to cruelty and harassment for being unable to meet the gratuitous dowry demand. It is further alleged that when the dowry demand could not be satisfied, the revisionist turned her out from his home in the year, 2004 and there being no alternative, she came to live with her parents and has been residing with her parents along with her minor child.

(3.) The matrix of necessary facts as would crystallize from allegations and counter allegations substantially are that the revisionist neglected to maintain the respondent No. 2 (his wife) and his legitimate minor child; and therefore, she was compelled to take recourse to the provisions of Section 125 of the Code by moving an application for maintenance against the Revisionist in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Bijnor. The Revisionist filed his objections against the application for maintenance of his wife in which he refuted the allegations and submitted that his wife was not entitled to any maintenance from him on the ground that he did not have sufficient means to maintain them, that his wife was able to maintain herself and lastly, that without sufficient reason, she refused to live with him. It is also alleged that she was leading an adulterous life. The learned Magistrate, however, by the impugned order, allowed the application and ordered the Revisionist to pay monthly allowances as aforementioned, which is under challenge in this revision.