RAM KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision under Sec. 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to quash the judgment and order dtd. 8/4/2022 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C./W.P./Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit in Complaint Case No. 2256 of 2017 (Smt. Mamta Devi Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra and Others) and the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Pilibhit dtd. 27/7/2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2022 (Ram Kumar Mishra Vs. Smt. Mamta and Another), whereby the appeal filed by the revisionist against the judgment and order dtd. 8/4/2022 has been dismissed.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Ashutosh Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Mr. M. Ashif, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. Case of the Revisionist

(3.) Opposite Party No. 2 was married with the revisionist in year 2001 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals without any fulfilment of dowry. After sometime of the marriage due to misguidance of parents of Opposite Party No. 2, the relationship between the husband and wife became strained and incompatible and opposite party no.2 refused to joins the company of the revisionist and started matrimonial litigation. The Opposite Party No. 2 filed a case under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit for maintenance which was registered as Maintenance Suit no.650 of 2009 (Smt. Mamta Devi Versus. Ram Kumar Mishra). Thereafter the court below has recorded the statement of P.W.1 Mamta Devi in which she has stated that she has received total maintenance amount in one time as Rs.1,50,000.00 and she did not want to proceed this case against the revisionist any further. After that the statement of D.W.1 Ram Kumar has been recorded in which he has stated that he has paid Rs.1,50,000.00 to his wife and now he had no concern with her in any manner. The Judicial Magistrate, Pilibhit after consideration of the aforesaid fact had rejected the application of the Opposite Party No. 2 vide impugned judgment and order dtd. 28/7/2009. Thereafter in the aforesaid case compromise has been arrived at between the both the parties on 28/7/2009 in the presence of some respected person of the society in which the opposite party no.2 has stated that she has received all the maintenance amount from the revisionist and no dues upon the revisionist was left.