RASHMI TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Surya Mani Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionists, Dr. Gyan Singh, learned counsel for the State and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

(2.) Challenge in the present revision is to the order dated 25.9.2017 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Criminal Misc. Case No.403 of 2013, whereby the court below has awarded maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- per month to revisionist no.1 (wife of respondent no.2) and Rs.3,000/- per month to revisionist no.2 (son of respondent no.2).

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that marriage of revisionist no.1 was solemnized with respondent no.2 on 23.2.2012 and out of the wedlock, they have a son, namely Shivansh. As revisionist no.1 was subjected to cruelty and harassment for demand of dowry, under the compelling circumstance, she left the house of her husband and started living separately. On 17.5.2013, the revisionists filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.10,000/- each from respondent no.2. In the application, it has been contended by the revisionists that respondent no.2 is working as Income Tax Inspector and his salary is about Rs.40,000/- per month. He has other source of income as well. In her examination, revisionist no.1 has stated that the salary of respondent no.2 is now 50,000/- per month whereas he has other source of income and therefore, suitable maintenance be awarded to the revisionists. Contentions of revisionist no. 1 have been denied by the respondent no.2 and according to him, revisionist no. 1 is a qualified lady, has done her Postgraduate Diploma and was earlier working in a private firm and therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance. It has been further pleaded by the respondent no.2 that after deduction, his salary is about Rs.33,000/- and he has taken a loan from Life Insurance Corporation. Vide order dated 19.12.2016, the Family Court below has declined the claim of revisionist no.1 and has awarded Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance amount to revisionist no.2. The court below has declined the claim of revisionist no.1 on the ground that she has sufficient qualification. This order of the Family Court was assailed by the revisionists before this Court in Criminal Revision No. 13 of 2017 and after setting aside the order dated 19.12.2016, matter was remanded back to the court below for reconsideration and decision afresh. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Family Court below passed the impugned order dated 25.9.2017 granting maintenance of Rs.6000/- per month to revisionist no.1 and Rs.3000/- per month to revisionist no.2. It is this order which has been challenged by the revisionists before this Court.