Allahabad High Court
Seraj Ahamad vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 October, 2020
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 87 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1619 of 2020 Revisionist :- Seraj Ahamad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Yadav,Ruchi Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 06.03.2020 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.4, Jaunpur in Case no. 1073 of 2018, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Jalalpur, District Jaunpur, whereby revisionist was directed to pay maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of application.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
It has been argued by learned Counsel for the revisionist that impugned order is against facts and law. The Court below has not considered relevant facts of the matter and the amount of maintenance awarded by the Court below is quite excessive and that too has been granted from the date of application and not from the date of order.
Learned Counsel for the revisionist submitted that after marriage the opposite party no.2 has completed her education and some professional course while residing at her matrimonial home and that all the expenses of her education have been borne by the revisionist. The opposite party no.2 has done a diploma of fashion technology and that she was running a beauty parlour and, thus, she is able to maintain herself but the Court below has not considered all these facts. It has been further submitted that the opposite party no.2 has left the revisionist without any proper cause and, thus, she is not entitled to claim any maintenance.
Learned Counsel has further submitted that maintenance has been awarded from the date of application, which is against law. It was submitted that the impugned order is against facts and law and, thus, is liable to be set aside.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the revision and argued that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with the order for maintenance of wives, children and parents. As per section 125 of Cr. P. C. if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife, his legitimate or illegitimate minor children whether married or not, and his father or mother unable to maintain themselves, the Magistrate First Class upon proof of such refusal or neglect direct such person to make monthly allowances and to pay the same to such persons from time to time. It is well established that object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who is not able to maintain herself. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. Maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty. It is awarded to her so that she can survive. The fact that time is spent between the date of the application and a final adjudication and an award in favour of the wife, does not mean that she had enough funds to maintain herself. The provisions of maintenance of wives and children intend to serve a social purpose [see Jagir Kaur & Anr. v. Jaswant Singh [AIR 1963 SC 1521]. In Nanak Chand v. Chandra Kishore Aggarwal & Ors [1969 (3) SCC 802, the Supreme Court, discussing Section 488 of the old Cr.P.C, held that Section 488 provides a summary remedy and is applicable to all persons belonging to any religion and has no relationship with the personal law of the parties. In Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal and Ors. [AIR 1978 SC 1807], the Court held that Section 125 is a reincarnation of Section 488 of the Cr.P.C. of 1898 except for the fact that parents have also been brought into the category of persons entitled for maintenance. It was observed that this provision is a measure of social justice specially enacted to protect, and inhibit neglect of women, children, old and infirm and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39. Again in Vimala (K) v. Veeraswamy (K) [(1991) 2 SCC 375, a three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Section 125 of the Code of 1973 is meant to achieve a social purpose and the object is to prevent vagrancy and destitution.
From above stated case laws the legal position is quite clear that Section 125 Cr. P.C is a measure of social legislation and is to be construed liberally for the welfare and benefit of the wife and children.
In the instant case it is not disputed that opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist. In her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she had alleged that she was harassed by revisionist and his family members for dowry and that on 01.09.2018 she was left near her house. She had also alleged that she is unable to maintain herself. The allegations made by opposite party no.2 have been denied by the revisionist and it was alleged that the revisionist has provided her education and has borne all expenses.
Considering the entire facts of the matter and evidence of parties, the Court below has rendered finding that the opposite party no.2 has sufficient and just cause to live separately and that as she has not been provided any maintenance so far. It has also been stated that the revisionist is working at Mahendra Agency, Varanasi and that he has some agricultural land and his father has a Tailoring Shop. The Court below has also rendered finding that no evidence could be shown regarding source of income of opposite party no.2.
Considering the facts of the matter and evidence on record, no fault can be found with the finding of the Court below that opposite party no.2 deserves for maintenance. The Court below has made discussion about evidence of both the parties. The findings rendered by the Court below are based on evidence. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the Court below can also not be said excessive or arbitrary. It also appears that since last two years the opposite party no.2 was residing at her parental home and she was not provided any maintenance. The award of maintenance from the date of application can also not be said against facts and law.
At this juncture it may be stated that object of Section 397 Cr.P.C. is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be a well-founded error and it may not be appropriate for the court to scrutinise the orders, which upon the face of it bears a token of careful consideration and appear to be in accordance with law. The revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. Another well-accepted norm is that the revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is a very limited one and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The Court has to keep in mind that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction itself should not lead to injustice ex facie. In this connection reference may be made to a recent case of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Deepak [Criminal Appeal No. 485 of 2019] decided on 13.03.2019.
In the instant case in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it can not be said that impugned order is suffering from any patent defect, illegality or error of jurisdiction so as to require any interference by this Court in exercise of powers under revisional jurisdiction.
The instant revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.10.2020/S.P.