JAI OM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed challenging an order dated 24.08.2004 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Miscellaneous Case No.1200 of 2003 Smt. Sarla v. Jai Om Sharma under Section 125 Cr.P.C., 1973 granting maintenance to the opposite party No.2, the wife in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month from date of application. It is an old matter assigned to this Bench. This case has been listed on the following dates i.e. 13.12.2018, 17.12.2018, 18.12.2018, 19.12.2018, 02.01.2019, 03.01.2019, 04.01.2019, 07.01.2019, 08.01.2019, 09.01.2019, 10.01.2019, 16.01.2019, 17.01.2019, 18.01.2019, 22.01.2019, 24.01.2019, 25.01.2019, 29.01.2019, 30.01.2019, 31.01.2019 and 01.02.2019. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicant or the second opposite party. This Court has gone through the order impugned, and the facts carried in the affidavit in support of the application, as well as the supplementary affidavit, besides the grounds raised in challenge to the order impugned with the assistance of the learned AGA. It is not disputed that the opposite party No.2 and the applicant are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 7.6.1994. The ground on which the impugned order is assailed is that she has gone back to her parents' house over the issue of not being blessed with a child. It is said that she is not living with the applicant without sufficient cause and, therefore, is not entitled to maintenance. By the impugned order dated 24.08.2004, the Judicial Magistrate, Etah has, after considering the evidence led on both sides, where the wife contested has found for a fact that over the issue of dowry, she has been turned out of her home and was living at her parents place for the past three years. He has found it to be on the basis of evidence on record, a case of neglect by the husband-applicant to maintain his wife, and that too, in connection with additional demand of dowry. He has also considered the fact that whether the wife is able to maintain herself or not, and found her to be without means of sustenance. The learned Magistrate has also considered the monthly income of the husband on the basis of evidence on record, and has determined it to be two thousand per month at that time. The applicant is primarily engaged in agriculture, and it is from that avocation that he earns his livelihood. He does not have many personal expenses, and lives a simple life. The learned Magistrate has carefully considered all those aspects and arrived at a conclusion that the wife is entitled to Rs. 1,000/- per month as maintenance.

(2.) This Court has considered the evidence on record and does not find any such patent illegality or irregularity, so as to invite interference by this Court, in exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973

(3.) The application fails and is dismissed.