DR. RAJIV SAXENA Vs. MANJU SAXENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a criminal revision against the judgement and order dated 10.7.1993 passed by Sri Y.S. Raizada the then family Court Bareilly allowing the opposite party's application and under Sec. 125 Criminal Procedure Code and thereby granting her a sum of Rs.400.00 per as maintenance for herself and Rs.200.00 for her minor male child. The admitted facts of the case are that the opposite party Smt. Manju Saxena was married to the revisionist Dr. Rajiv Saxena on 23.4.1990 according to Hindu rites. The opposite party wife claimed that the revisionist husband treated her with cruelty because of greed for dowery. The opposite party, therefore, started residing with her parents at Bareilly. The male child was born to her out of her union with the revisionist. The opposite party pleaded that the revisionist was working as a doctor. She was unable to maintain herself and her child. The revisionist neglected to maintain her. The defence of the revisionist before the court below was that the opposite party has refused to live with him without any just cause. She was, therefore, not entitled for any maintenance allowance. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court awarded a sum of Rs.400.00 per month as maintenance to the opposite party and Rs.200.00 per month for her male child. Aggrieved by the said judgement, the husband revisionist has come up in revision before this Court. I have heard Sri A.K. Goyal, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.C. Saxena for the opposite party considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist was always prepared to keep and maintain the opposite party on the condition of her living with him but the opposite party has refused to live with him without any just ground. It was argued that the revisionist had also filed civil suit and obtained an injunction order therein from the Court of Munsif Nainital in which district the revisionist was working as doctor for restraining her from refrying. The learned counsel for the revisionist has drawn my attention towards the statement of the opposite party wherein she stated that if the revisionist was prepared to take her by coming to her parent's house, she was prepared to go and live with him. It appears to me that the opposite party being a Hindu wife was very conscious about her prestige and status. True in spite of her dispute and differences with the revisionist she was still prepared to go and live with the revisionist provided the revisionist came to fetch her and withdraw the allegations levelled against her. Although the revisionist stated in his statement on oath before the court below that the opposite party was working as teacher in Montessori school and yet he was unable to state her pay etc. No independent evidence in proof of the fact that the opposite party was working as teacher and was getting any amount as salary was filled before the court below. It was stated by the revisionist that after delivery her father-in-law, mother in law and brother in law took away the opposite party saying that the opposite party was not keeping well there. It would thus be seen that the opposite party did not desert the house of the revisionist. She rather gracefully went from there along with their parents and brother in law. When the opposite party gracefully went away along with her parents, it was the duty of the revisionist to have fetched her with all the honour, since the revisionist failed to bring the opposite party to his house with grace and honour, it cannot be said that the opposite party has been refusing to live with the revisionist. Thus the inference which the learned court below has rightly drawn was that the revisionist has neglected to maintain her. The opposite party being admittedly wife of the revisionist, she having no independent source of income and having responsibility for maintaining her minor child I am, therefore, of the opinion that there was no illegality and impropriety or incorrectness in the order of the learned Family court for awarding the maintenance allowance in question. It was argued by the revisionist that the court below has awarded the maintenance allowance to the opposite party from the date of application without assigning any reason. When it is clear from the record of the case that the revisionist has neglected to maintain the opposite party and the opposite party was entitled to get maintenance allowance for herself and to minor child there was no impropriety on the part of the learned court below for ordering payment of maintenance allowance from the date of application in accordance with the provision of sub-section 2 of Sec. 125 Criminal Procedure Code. Coming to the question of maintenance allowance, I find that a sum of Rs.400.00 awarded to the opposite party and Rs.200.00 awarded to the minor child as maintenance was quite modest. In result I find that the revision has no force and is hereby dismissed. Revision Dismissed.