BITOLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. None has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 despite service of notice.

(2.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dtd. 2/2/2022, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur, in Case No.122 of 2016 (Bitola @ Rinku Vs. Dharmender), whereby the application of revisionist under Sec. 125 CrPC for maintenance, has been rejected.

(3.) Learned counsel for revisionist submitted that the revisionist is wife of the opposite party No.2 and their marriage has taken place in the year 2013 but after marriage she was harassed by the opposite party No.2 and his family members and that in the month of November, 2014, she was forced to leave her matrimonial home. Referring to the averments and evidence of the parties, it was submitted that there is sufficient evidence to show that the revisionist has sufficient cause and reasons to live separately but her evidence has not been considered by the court below in correct perspective and the case of revisionist was dismissed on the ground that the revisionist is residing separately without any just cause. The alleged decree of restitution of conjugal rights passed in favour of the opposite party No.2 cannot the basis to reject the claim of maintainance. It was further submitted that revisionist has no source of income to maintain herself. The findings rendered by the court below are not based on evidence and thus, impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for revisionist has placed reliance upon the decision of Smt. Kiran Singh vs. State of U.P. and another [Criminal Revision No.896 of 2019], decided on 26/4/2022.