Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others on 1 June, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 ALL 1483
Author: Chandra Dhari Singh
Bench: Chandra Dhari Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Reserved Reserved on: 11.02.2020 Delivered on: 01.06.2020 In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 412 of 2019 Revisionist :- Jitendra Kumar Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Saurabh Misra,Sunit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Amrendra Verma,Awadhesh Kumar Shukla Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.
1. The instant revision has been filled under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act against order dated 30.01.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No.409 of 2012 (Smt. Sarika Verma and Anr. vs. Shri Jitendra Kumar Verma) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
2. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party no. 2 & 3 filed a petition U/S 125 Cr.P.C before Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow which was registered as Case No.409/2012 wherein it was mentioned that the revisionist is doing business of jewellery and is earning Rs. 35,000/- per month. Vide ex-parte interim order dated 17.05.2012, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow fixed interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- for opposite party no.3. No interim maintenance was fixed for opposite party no. 2.
3. Opposite party nos.2 & 3 also filed a petition under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow, which was registered as Case No.473/2012 (later on was renumbered as 1484/2013) wherein it was mentioned that the revisionist is doing business of jewellery and is earning Rs 35,000/- per month. In the said petition, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-l, Lucknow vide order dated 09.08.2012 fixed ex-parte interim maintenance of Rs.3000/- for opposite party no.2 and Rs.1000/- for opposite party no. 3.
4. The revisionist after appearance filed a recall application for recall of order dated 09.08.2012 passed in Domestic Violence case before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow with evidence that the revisionist is now working as an employee with Trimurti Cable TV Networks on a salary of Rs.4,000/- only. On the application of recall, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow vide order dated 06.06.2013 amended the earlier order dated 09.08.2012 and fixed interim maintenance of Rs.1500/- for opposite party no.2 and Rs.700/- for opposite party no.3 i.e. total interim maintenance of Rs.2,200/- for opposite party nos.2 & 3.
5. Against order dated 06.06.2013, opposite parties no.2 & 3 filed a criminal appeal before learned District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.251 of 2013 (Smt. Sarika Verma & Ors. vs. State). The said case, however, was transferred to the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI, Court No.5, Lucknow. Vide order dated 31.07.2014, Special Judge, CBI, Court No.5, Lucknow upheld order dated 06.06.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow.
6. The revisionist also filed a recall application dated 27.03.2014 for recall of ex-parte interim order dated 17.05.2012 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No. 409 of 2012 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 06.02.2015, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow directed the revisionist to submit the details of payment made to opposite parties no.2 & 3 in Domestic Violence case.
7. Vide order dated 20.04.2018, Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow directed the revisionist to submit details of payment made. In compliance of the said order, the revisionist filed an application dated 23.05.2018 submitting the details of payment made to opposite parties no.2 & 3, which was registered as C-32.
8. Opposite party no.2 filed another application for recovery of Rs.1,12,500/-, which was registered as C-35 and a recovery warrant was issued against the revisionist.
9. The revisionist filed two applications on 09.08.2018. First, application dated 09.08.2018, which was registered as C-36, for recall of recovery warrant and disposal of application dated 23.05.2018 (C-32) before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow and another application dated 09.08.2018 which was registered as C-37 with a prayer for dismissal of case no.409 of 2012 due to the unwillingness of opposite party no.2 to record her examination-in-chief and her failure to submit any evidence to support her case.
10. Vide the impugned order dated 30.01.2019, learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow decided applications (C-32, C-35, C-36 & C-37) and rejected the applications filed by the revisionist. Against the said order, the present revision has been filed.
11. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the orders of the Courts below are not justified in fixing the total maintenance of Rs.3,700/- as against the income of revisionist of Rs.4,000/- per month. It is submitted that the maintenance amount is 93% of the total proved income of the revisionist. Therefore, it is illegal and contrary to the law settled by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court from time to time.
12. Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that the opposites parties have not given any evidence with respect to the claim of maintenance and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Court below is without considering the fact that the revisionist does not have any income of Rs.35,000/- as claimed by the opposite party no.2. There is no evidence on record to prove the version or contention of opposite party no.2 regarding the total income of the revisionist. The impugned order has been passed by Court below in a mechanical manner and without perusing any evidence regarding the income of the revisionist. The revisionist is not capable to pay the maintenance as awarded by virtue of the impugned order, as the total income of the revisionist is Rs.4,000/- only.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 30.01.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No.409 of 2012, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The said order has been passed after considering the entirety of the matter and therefore, there is no scope left to adjudicate the said impugned order in the revisional jurisdiction. There is no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record. It is also submitted that the revisionist failed to make out any case or ground to quash the impugned order dated 30.01.2019 (supra) passed by the Court below. In such circumstances, the instant revision being devoid of merit be dismissed as such.
14. Counter and rejoinder exchanged by the parties are available on record.
15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused impugned order dated 30.01.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No.409 of 2012, under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
16. Relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereunder:-
"................... उपरोक्त प्रार्थना पत्रों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में उभयपक्षों द्वारा न्यायालय के दिनांक 10.3.15 के आदेश की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ण कराया गया। प्रार्थिनी का कथन है कि दिनांक 10.3.2015 के आदेश में यह कहीं भी उल्लिखित नहीं है कि विपक्षी द्वारा घरेलू हिंसा अधिनियम में भरणपोषण की धनराशि अदा करने पर विपक्षी प्रस्तुत आपराधिक वाद में न्यायालय द्वारा निर्धारित भरणपोषण की धनराशि से अवमुक्त हो जाएगा। अपने सी 35 प्रार्थनापत्र में विपक्षी द्वारा न्यायालय के उक्त आदेश को यथावत उद्धृत किया गया है जबकि विपक्षी का कथन है कि वह घरेलू हिंसा अधिनियम में निरन्तर भरणपोषण की धनराशि जमा कर रहा है। ऐसी स्थिति में प्रस्तुत आपराधिक वाद में उसे प्रार्थिनी नं02 के लिए भरणपोषण अदा नहीं करना है। इस संबंध में विपक्षी द्वारा न्यायालय के दिनांक 10.3.2015 के आदेश का हवाला दिया गया है और यह तर्क प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि उक्त आदेश द्वारा न्यायालय ने घरेलू हिंसा अधिनियम एवं प्रस्तुत आपराधिक वाद के भरणपोषण की धनराशि को समायोजित कर दिया गया है। प्रार्थना का कथन है कि घरेलू हिंसा अधिनियम के प्रारम्भ में दिनांक 17.5.2012 के आदेश द्वारा प्रार्थिनी नं01 के लिए 3000/-रू0 एवं प्रार्थिनी नं02 के लिए 1000/-रु० भरण पोषण की धनराशि न्यायालय द्वारा निर्धारित की गयी थी परन्तु जब अपर मुख्य न्यायिक मजि0 महोदय के संज्ञान में यह तथ्य आया कि पारिवारिक न्यायालय ने प्रार्थिनी द्वारा पारिवारिक न्यायालय में अन्तर्गत धारा-125 दं0प्र0 सं0 का आपराधिक वाद संस्थित किया है और पारिवारिक न्यायालय द्वारा प्रार्थिनी नं02 के लिए भरणपोषण की धनराशि 1500/-निर्धारित की है तो अपर मुख्य न्यायिक मजि0 महोदय द्वारा अपने दिनांक 17.5.2012 के आदेश को संशोधित करते हुए दिनांक 6.6.2013 को एक संशोधित आदेश पारित कर प्रार्थिनी नं01 को 1500/-रुपये एवं प्रार्थिनी नं02 को 700/-रूपये भरणपोषण दिलाये जाने का आदेश पारित किया। ऐसी स्थिति में जब घरेलू हिंसा अधिनियम के वाद में पारिवारिक न्यायालय के निर्धारित भरणपोषण की धनराशि का संज्ञान लेते हुए भरणपोषण के धानराशि अल्प कर दी गयी तथा इस न्यायालय के दिनांक 10.3.2015 के आदेश का यह आशय कदापि नहीं है कि यदि विपक्षी घरेलू हिंसा अधिनियम के वाद में प्रार्थिनीगण को भरणपोषण की धनराशि अदा कर रहा है तो प्रस्तुत आपराधिक वाद में उसे रिनी नं02 को भरणपोषण अदा करने की आवश्यकता नहीं है। जबकि विपक्षी के अनुसार उसे प्रस्तुत आपराधिक वाद में भरणपोषण अदा नहीं करना है, क्योंकि वह घरेलू हिंसा अधिनियम में निरन्तर भरणपोषण की धनराशि जमा कर रहा है । परन्तु अपर मुख्य न्यायिक मजि० महोदय के दिनांक 17.5.2012 एवं दिनांक 6.6.2013 तथा इस न्यायालय के आदेश दिनांक 10.3.2015 लखनऊ को एक साथ समग्र रूप से अवलोकित किये जाने पर यह तार्किक एवं न्यायोचित आशय निकलता है कि पारिवारिक न्यायालय द्वारा भरणपोषण की धनराशि निर्धारण के उपरान्त इस तथ्य का संज्ञान लेते हुए घरेलू हिंसा अधिनियम में न्यायालय द्वारा भरणपोषण की धनराशि को कम कर दिया गया है। अतः इन दोनों मुकदमों की धनराशि को पुनः समायोजित किये जाने का कोई औचित्य नहीं रह जाता है। ऐसी स्थिति में न्यायालय प्रार्थिनी के तर्को से पूर्णतया सहमत है और पक्षी के तर्को को निर्मूल एवं अतार्किक पाती है।
लेखालिपिक की अद्यतन आख्या दिनांक 25.1.2019 के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी द्वारा प्रस्तुत अपराधिक वाद में भरणपोषण की कोई भी धनराशि अदा नहीं की गयी है। ऐसीस्थिति में विपक्षी पर यह विधिक दायित्व जाता है कि वह प्रार्थिनी नं02 के भरणपोषण हेत निर्धारित धनराशि अदा करे। विपक्षी को भरणपोषण की धनराशि अदा करने हेतु 15 दिन का समय प्रदान किया जाता है। इस सम्प्रेषण के साथ सी32, सी35, सी36 एवं सी37 प्रार्थना पत्रों को निस्तारित किया जाता है। पत्रावली दिनांक 28.2.2019 को साक्ष्य प्रार्थिनी हेतु पेश हो।"
17. Aforesaid order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow is under challenge in this revision brought under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act. Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act has only limited scope, that revision can be brought under the Section only against orders passed by family Court under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. Parties to proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C before Family Court cannot resort to the general remedy provided under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. Chapter IX of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with (a) grant of maintenance to wife, minor children and parents who are not capable of maintaining themselves, (b) procedure on such claims, (c) execution of orders made on such claims, (d) alteration or modification of orders passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C etc. The last part of Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act provides that revision cannot be filed against interlocutory orders. Interim maintenance order is, no doubt, interlocutory order. Sections 125 to 128 in Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with so many situations and orders, and most of them will have the character of final orders. But an interim order granting maintenance is always subject to final order under Section 125 Cr.P.C, and such an order can very well be modified or varied by the family court. In short, such an order granting maintenance for a limited period will have only limited force and effect, tenure wise. It cannot go beyond the proceedings, and it is always subject to modifications or variations by the court which passed the order. Such an order will not also decide the material issue between the parties, involved in the lis. Thus, I find that an order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, granting interim maintenance is an interlocutory maintenance. The applications which were for the modification of the interim maintenance order were rightly rejected by the Court below and also I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record.
18. In view of the above, I do not find any reasons or ground to interfere in the impugned order in the revisional jurisdiction. The instant revision is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 01.06.2020 nishant/-
[Chandra Dhari Singh, J.]