HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 47
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 2316 of 2007
Revisionist :- Smt. Aradhana Devi
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anshu Chaudhary
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Surendra Kumar,J.
Criminal revision is taken up in the revised list.
It may be mentioned here that husband opposite party no.2 was served by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, in compliance of the order of this Court. The husband was served through his mother on 24.9.2007 but in spite of service of notice, the husband did not respond in this Court.�
Heard Sri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
Smt. Aradhana Devi has filed the instant revision impleading the husband Salabh Tiwari @ Bablu, opposite party no.2 challenging the judgment and order dated 11.5.2007 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, in Case No.611 of 2006, Smt. Aradhana Devi Vs. Salabh Tiwari @ Bablu under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the trial court allowed the application of the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. awarding maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.700/- per month from the date of the order and directed the husband opposite party no.2 to make payment regularly.
The wife who is revisionist herein assailed the impugned� judgment and order saying that looking to the spiraling price index, it is difficult for her to lead a respectful life including her maintenance. The amount awarded by the trial Court is quite meagre and insufficient for her maintenance.
The wife revisionist filed the application for maintenance against her husband under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the trial court saying that she was married to him 27.11.1997 and sufficient dowry was given in the marriage and both of them continued to enjoy their marital life. Subsequently, her husband started to torture and beat her asking for more dowry and at one stage, he tried to burn her by pouring kerosene oil upon her but anyhow she saved herself. He demanded rupees one lac through her from his father-in-law which demand could not be fulfilled.
On 14.9.2003, she was turned out from her matrimonial home by the husband after beating her and since then she has been residing at her parental home. One case of dowry demand was filed at Crime No.1 of 2004. Her father had retired from service and financial condition of her father was not proper. According to her, her husband used to do private service and earned Rs.10,000/- per month from different sources. Her husband has his own residential house at Kanpur Nagar.
The husband, in objection, admitted his marriage with Smt. Aradhana Devi but denied the allegations saying that he was only 8th passed whereas his wife was M.A. passed. Thus in this case, the wife is post graduate but the husband is junior high school. According to the husband, he is ready to bring her to his house and maintain her but she did not want to come. According to the husband, due to ill health, it was very difficult for him to do any private service and he is solely dependent upon income of his father whereas the wife being post graduate in Hindi, is earning Rs.5000/- per month by giving tuition to the children.
Learned trial court after hearing both the parties and going through the evidence recorded following findings:
(a) that the wife had sufficient reason to reside separately from her husband and she had been neglected by her husband and the husband did not pay any maintenance to her;
(b) that the wife had no source of income to maintain herself;
(c) that the husband did not file any medical certificate to show his poor health;
(d) that the husband along with his father had some agriculture land to cultivate and certainly he earned some money from agriculture. The income of the husband was found by the trial court as Rs.3000/- per month. The husband was found sufficiently sound to pay maintenance allowance to his wife.
The main submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that if the findings of the trial court are taken to be final, the income of the husband has been found as Rs.3000/- per month, therefore, he is liable to pay 50% thereof per month to his wife as maintenance. The wife should be awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month even though the said amount is meagre to lead a respectful life in the civilized society.
After considering all the facts, nature of the evidence, income of the husband and condition of the wife revisionist Smt. Aradhana Devi, I think that the amount of maintenance already awarded by the trial court should be enhanced to Rs.1500/- per month from Rs.700/- per month so as to enable her to lead a respectful life to some extent.� The judgment and order dated 11.5.2007 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar, is modified to the extent that the revisionist,� Smt. Aradhana Devi shall be awarded Rs.1500/- per month as maintenance allowance from the date of the impugned judgment and order. The instant criminal revision is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 11.7.2013