Delhi District Court
Smt. Radhika Devi vs Shri Ram Gulab Yadav on 21 January, 2008
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAL, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI. Case ID No. 02402R01 3 0 3 8 2 0 0 7 Criminal Revision No. 11 / 2 0 0 7 Police Station Welcome Date of Filing 14 th Febru a ry 2007 Argumen t s heard on 7 th Ja n u a r y 2008 Date of Decision 21 st Ja n u a r y 2008 In the Matter of: Smt. Radhika Devi, W/o Shri Gulab Yadav, R/o 264, Mazdoor Ja n t a Colony, Kabootar Market, Welcome, Shah d a r a , Delhi. ..... Petitioner VERSUS Shri Ram Gulab Yadav, S /o Shri Balikara n Yadav, Ward No. 20, Jalkal Road, Opposite Sanjay Cinema Hall, Mali Tola, PS Khalilabad, Distt. Sant Kabir Nagar. Old Address: A195, Sain Vihar, Behind Neelam Dhara m Kanta, Rathi Mill Bypass, Ghaziabad. ..... Respondent O R D E R
1. P resent order disposes of Criminal Revision No. 11 / 0 7 filed by Smt. Radhika Devi against Shri Ram Gulab Yadav. The revision is against order dated 15.1.200 7 passed on a petition u / s 125 Cr.PC. Vide order / j u d g m e n t dated 15.1.2007, Ld. MM Anurad h a Shukla Bhardwaj dismissed the petition on the plea Page 1 of 7 that the same is not seeming bonafide. Ld. MM, considering the intent of legislation in enacting the provisions of Section 125 Cr.PC i.e. of avoiding vagrancy of women, dismisse d the petition. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reprod uced below: "Testimony of complainant if considered as it is, in fact, she is living in the house of her husban d and that she is getting benefit of crop etc. from her agricultural land. Thus, two basic needs of the petitioner i.e. of abode and food are fulfilled. Petitioner has admitted that she is living with her son Rana who is running busines s of silencer. The duty of maintaining the petitioner alongwith her husban d, is also of her son. Though one witnes s of the petitioner stated that she is living at Janta Colony. Petitioner herself in her own testimony stated that she is living in the house of her husban d. She even stated that she had come to the court from her village i.e. Ghaziaba d. Her husban d also say s that she is living with him at his village in Ghaziaba d. She herself admitted that she is getting benefits of crop from village and that her son who is doing busines s of silencer is also living with her. Petitioner, thus, herself, has admitted that she is not a destitute or vagrant and that she has sufficient mean s for her maintenance. On the other hand, her husban d is the retired employee, she is living in the house provided by him where her son is also residing who is also working and they have agricultural income also, the petitioner is not entitled for any kind of maintenance. The petitioner is not seeming bonafide, considering the intent of legislation in enacting the provisions of Section 125 Cr.PC i.e. of avoiding vagrancy Page 2 of 7 of women, the petition is dismis s e d. File be consigned to Record Room."
2. Grievance of revisionist is that Hon'ble lower court did not appreciate the facts given by her in her petition; that she (petitioner) was insulted, tau nte d and beaten several times by the responde n t; that she was thrown out of the matrimonial home on 15.7.2002; that he has not taken her back till date; that he (husb a n d) is driver at Sub Station Grid No. 1 DVB and has been earning Rs.20,000 / per mont h; that Ld. Lower Court failed to appreciate that she (petitioner) is unem ployed and has got no source of income; that responde n t has been maintaini ng illicit relations hip with daughter in law behind the curtain; that responde n t treats her (petitioner) as "Kawab Main Haddi"; that the opinion of Hon'ble Lower Court regarding duty of petitioner's son to maintain her is wrong; that it cannot be decided in the present petition whether her son is able to maint ain her or not; that hus b a n d of petitioner admitted that he is retired employee but he is not taking any benefit of provident fund, pension; that she (petitioner) is illiterate and simple woman; that her age and condition should have been considered by the Ld. Lower Court; that the impugned judgment has been passed in routine and mecha nical man ne r; that impugned judgmen t is illegal and unlawful; that impugned judgmen t is based on conjecture and Page 3 of 7 sermises; that the impugne d judgme nt is against principals of nat ur al justice; that there is no merits in the judgme nt passed by the Hon'ble Lower Court; that the impugned judgme nt has been passed by Hon'ble Lower Court against the facts, circu m s t a n c e s and evidence on record and that the impugned judgmen t is devoid of any legality.
3. I have heard argume n t s on the revision petition from both parties i.e. Ld. Counsel Ms. Radha Yadav for revisionist and Ld. Counsel Shri Sandeep Verma for responde n t. I have perused the record file carefully.
4. Section 125 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 inter alia provides as below: If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain -
(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
(b) .........
(c) .........
(d) .........
a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or ................ at such monthly rate, as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
5. It is clear from the above Section 125 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that wife is entitled to mainte n a n c e from her Page 4 of 7 hus b a n d only when she is una ble to maintai n herself. Petitioner Smt. Radhika Devi in para 6 of her petition has deposed that she is una ble to earn and maintain herself. She is homely woman and needs mainte n a n c e from her hus b a n d / r e s p o n d e n t for her livelihood. In cross examina tion by Ld. Counsel Shri Sandeep Verma for responde n t, PW1 Smt. Radhika deposes that they (including also PW1) have agricult ur al land at their village and the same is used for crops. It is admitted that from the agricult ur al land, she receives crops and other benefits from the village. Her elder son is doing a busines s of silencer. On the day of evidence, she has come from the house, where her hus b a n d Shri Ram Gulab Yadav resides. In view of above pieces of evidence, it is clear that revisionist Smt. Radhika Devi is able to maint ai n herself from the crop produced she is getting from agricult ur al land and also from the other benefits she is getting from the village.
6. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has relied upon judgme nt of Hon'ble Jha r k h a n d High Court in Smt. Pokh a n i Devi and other s vs. Sta t e of Jhar k h a n d and other s 20 0 5( 3) RCR (Crimin a l) 6 . In that case, it has been held that mainte n a n c e means shelter, food, medicine and other mean s of life. Thus, to deny mainte n a n c e to the wife only on the ground that she is earning meagre amou n t for livelihood is wholly irrelevant. It is worth Page 5 of 7 noting that in the present case, there is nothing in the evidence of PW1 Smt. Radhika Devi that her income from agricult ur al land and other benefits from the village are meagre.
7. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has also relied upon judgmen t of Hon'ble Madhya Prades h High Court in Hari Mangal @ Hari Singh vs. Phool Kunwar 2005 (3) RCR (Criminal) 770. Relevant portion of this judgme nt is reprod uced below: "The other submis sion of the applicant counsel was that as non applicant is residing with her adult son who is looking after her then the responsibility of the maintenance cannot be fastened over the applicant. On considering this submis sion, I am of the considered view that if husban d is alive and able bodied person then deserted or neglected wife like non applicant has a right to live separately and claim the maintenance from the husban d. So, this ground is also not helping the applicant. Although, in this regard counsel for applicant submitted a decided case of this Court in the matter of Sa k u n Bai v. Sat y a n a r a y a n , 19 8 0 (II) MPWN Note 23 9 but the same is distinguishable in the pecular facts and circumstance s of the case at hand."
8. In the present case, PW1 Smt. Radhika Devi has deposed that they have agricultur al land at their village and the same is used for crops. It is admitted that from the agricultur al land, she receives crops and other benefits from the village. On the day of evidence, she has come from the house, where her hus b a n d Ram Gulab Yadav resides. These pieces of evidence go to show that revisionist Smt. Radhika Devi is not depende n t upon her son. She is maint aining herself in her own right by receiving Page 6 of 7 agricult ur al produce and other benefits from the village and also she is residing in the house of her husb a n d .
9. In view of above discus sion, it is held that revisionist Smt. Radhika Devi is not entitled to mainten a n ce u / s 125 Cr.PC from her hus b a n d / r e s p o n d e n t Ram Gulab Yadav. Thus, the present revision petition has no merit. Hence, the same is dismissed.
10. Trial Court Record with copy of this order be sent back. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 st DAY OF
JANUARY, 200 8 .
(MAHAVIR SINGHAL)
Additional Sessions Ju dge
Karkardoom a Courts
Delhi 110032.
Page 7 of 7