Allahabad High Court
Shashi Kant vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 December, 2022
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 89 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34960 of 2022 Applicant :- Shashi Kant Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Ms. Sandhya Chaturvedi, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ansar Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S.B.Maurya, learned AGA-I, for the State.
The instant application has been moved on behalf of the applicant with the prayer to quash the order dated 4.5.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Etawah in Case No.220 of 2017, under Section 125 Cr.P.C.by which applicant was directed to pay Rs. 8000/- per month to opposite party no.2 as maintenance.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 without any reasonable cause resided separately after leaving her matrimonial home and in spite of best efforts of applicant, she did not return back to her matrimonial home and instead of returning her matrimonial home, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for her maintenance which was allowed by the trial court on 4.5.2022 and applicant was directed to pay Rs. 8000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the application, i.e., 24.4.2018.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order dated 4.5.2022 is illegal as trial court accepted the version of opposite party no.2 as gospel truth and disbelieved the version of applicant. She next submitted that before the court concerned applicant filed detailed objection and he specifically stated that opposite party no.2 is living in adultery and is having illicit relationship with his Bhabhi and this fact shows the mentality of opposite party no.2 and only due to this reason opposite party no.2 on her own left her matrimonial home and applicant neither demanded any dowry nor ever tortured her and he never turned her out from her matrimonial home but in spite of that court concerned allowed the application moved by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
She further submitted that opposite party no.2 is highly qualified lady and she runs a coaching centre and her earning is about Rs.30,000/- per month and on the other hand applicant is although a BAMS Doctor but his job is on contractual basis and he posted at Primary Health Centre, and his salary is Rs. 20,000/- per month but in spite of that trial court directed to pay Rs.8,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 as maintenance and, therefore, the order dated 4.5.2022 is illegal and is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 was turned her out from her matrimonial home and she is not having any sourse of income, therefore, she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance and as applicant is BAMS Doctor and he himself admitted that he is posted at Primary Health Centre and his income is Rs. 20,000/- per month, therefore, there is no illegality in the order and Rs. 8000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive.
Learned AGA further submitted that opposite party no.2 appeared before the trial court as PW-1 and her father Hari Ram has also appeared as PW-2 and opposite party no.2 in her statement specifically stated that applicant,i.e., her husband, is not maintaining her and he forcibly turned her out from her matrimonial home and, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 4.5.2022.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case.
From the perusal of the record it appears that opposite party no.2 is the wife of applicant and she filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for her maintenance which was allowed by the court concerned and applicant was directed to pay total Rs.8000/- per month to her as maintenance from the date of application, i.e., 24.4.2018.
From the record it further reflects that opposite party no.2 examined before the trial court as PW-1 and admittedly she is legally wedded wife of applicant and according to her, she was subjected to cruelty for want of additional dowry of Rs. Five Lacs and on 20.2.2018 she was turned out from her matrimonial home by applicant and his family members and thereafter she started living in her paternal home along with her father and she is having no separate source of income and applicant, who is her husband, is not maintaining her.
The father of opposite party no.2 was also examined as PW-2 and he also stated that her daughter was subjected to cruelty for want of dowry and she was turned out from her matrimonial home and applicant, her husband, is not maintaining her.
Although in the present matter applicant was also examined before the trial court as DW-1 but his testimony was discarded by the trial court and learned counsel for the applicant could not show any good reason to disbelieve the findings recorded by the trial court.
Further, admittedly, applicant is a BAMS Doctor and according to applicant himself his salary is Rs. 20,000/- per month although according to opposite party no.2 his salary is Rs.30,000/- per month and apart from salary he also did medical practice in his home and he earns about Rs.30,000/- per month and as rent he also received Rs.30,000/- per month and he is also having agricultural land in village and from agricultural land he earns Rs.Three Lacs per annum, therefore, considering the income of applicant the amount of maintenance which is Rs.8,000/- per month cannot be said to be excessive.
Therefore, from the discussions made above, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 4.5.2022.
Accordingly, the instant application filed on behalf of the applicant is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2022 SKM