KAMAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal revision under Sec. 19(4) of the Family Court Act has been preferred against the order dtd. 21/2/2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.2, Unnao, in Case No.686 of 2016 (Smt. Sunaina Vs. Kamal), under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. moved by opposite party no.2 was partly allowed and revisionist was directed to pay Rs.2,000.00 per month to opposite party nos.2 from the date of application as maintenance.The arrears of maintenance are directed to be paid in five easy quarterly equal installments from the date of order.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that marriage of revisionist with opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 7/5/2015 without any dowry. After marriage the opposite party no.2 lived in her matrimonial house with revisionist only for four days and gone to her parental home. The opposite party no.2 again returned to her matrimonial house and lived there only for ten days and went to her parental house and filed complaint against the revisionist in which revisionist was summoned under Sec. 498-A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and sec. 3/4 D.P. Act. In the said case the revisionist has moved bail and he was released on bail by the court concerned. Despite several efforts made by the revisionist to bring back to his wife the opposite party no.2, however, she did not returned. Thereafter the revisionist filed a suit under Sec. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal right on 17/2/2016 in which the respondent no.2 has put her appearance on 11/3/2016, which is still pending. It is submitted that during pendency of application under Sec. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act of the revisionist, the opposite party no.2 has filed application under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the court below without considering the facts that application under sec. 9 of Hindu Marriage Act moved by the revisionist is still pending. The trial court failed to consider the fact that respondent no.2 herself left her in-laws house without any valid reason and was residing her parental house since 28/1/2016. The respondent no.2 is graduate lady and is teaching in a school and she is earning sufficient money, thus she is capable to maintain herself. The revisionist and his family members i.e. father, mother, two sisters are dependent on the agriculture income and revisionist is doing work as labour and except that he has no source of income. The counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance under Sec. 125(4) Cr.P.C., which provides that the wife is not entitled for any allowance from her husband if she is living adultery or living separately without any sufficient reason. The impugned order is based on surmises and conjuncture and therefore, liable to be set-aside.

(3.) Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has made oral submissions that marriage of opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 7/5/2015 as per Hindu Right and Rituals. The in-laws of opposite party no.2 started torturing her for demand of dowry. She is not scale in any activity. The revisionist has agricultural land as well as he works in a factory and his salary is Rs.10,000.00. The monthly income of revisionist is about Rs.50,000.00 per months from his salary, the business of milk and milk products and from agricultural land. It is also submitted that impugned judgement passed by the trial court is in accordance with law, as she has been banished from her matrimonial house on account of demand of dowry. Learned trial court has directed the revisionist to pay the meager amount of Rs.2,000.00 per month to opposite party no.2 as maintenance from the date of application and the arrears are directed to be deposited in five easy quarterly installments.