Allahabad High Court
Smt. Saveeta vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 2 September, 2020
Author: Ajit Singh
Bench: Ajit Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 75 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 39 of 2019 Revisionist :- Smt. Saveeta Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ajit Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for revisionist, Shri Anil Kumar, and learned AGA appearing for the State.
2. The present criminal revision has been filed before this Court under Section 397 against the judgment and order dated 06.11.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No. 750 of 2014 (Smt. Saveeta Vs. Alok) whereby the application moved by the revisionist under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
3. While rejecting the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the learned Principal Judge has observed thus:-
"याचिनी व विपक्षी के मध्य विवाह होना स्वीकार है. याचिनी ने यह स्वयं स्वीकार किया है कि विवाह के समय उसके ससुर Braj Veer सिंह ने अपनी कृषि की जमीन में से वादिनी के दोनों लड़कों वीर चौधरी व नीर चौधरी के नाम 9 बीघा जमीन कर दी थी और वह जमीन आज भी उनके नाम में है. याचिनी का यह भी कथन है कि वह अपने ससुर से आधी जमीन अपने नाम कराने के लिए कहती थी और यह भी स्पष्ट बयान दिया है कि यह बात सही है कि मेरी शर्त यह है कि जब तक मेरे बच्चों को कुल जमीन में से आधी नहीं मिल जाती है मैं अपने पति अलोक कुमार के साथ जाने को तैयार नहीं हूँ. पत्रावली पर साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत की गयी है उससे यह विदित होता है कि याचिनी व विपक्षी आपस में विवाहित है और याचिनी की यह मांग है कि जब तक उसके ससुर अपनी कुल भूमि में से आधी भूमि उसके बच्चों को नहीं देते है तब तक वह अपने पति के साथ जाने को तैयार नहीं है. जब कि याचिनी के दोनों बच्चों के नाम 9 बीघा जमीन पूर्व में ही नाम की जा चुकी है जिसकी संरक्षिका स्वयं याचिनी ही है और उसकी आमदनी भी याचिनी ही प्राप्त करती है. अतः याचिका में प्रस्तुत मामले में न्यायलय द्वारा बल नहीं पाया जाता है तदनुसार याचिनी द्वारा प्रस्तुत याचिका निरस्त होने योग्य है."
4. From a perusal of the record of this case, it is evident that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking award of Rs. 10,000/- per month payable by her husband Alok Kumar as maintenance amount to her and her minor children. In the said application the case set up by the wife is that earlier she was married to Akshay Kumar on 04.05.2009 and after the death of Akshay Kumar in a family dispute, she was offered a proposal by her father-in-law to marry with his younger son Alok Kumar (dewar). Her father-in-law also executed a sale deed of 9 bighas of agricultural property in favour of her two minor sons. After the solemnisation of her marriage with opposite party No. 2 on 18.05.2014, she started living with him. Since then, the opposite party No. 2 started demanding a motorcycle and three lakhs of rupees from the wife and her parents to get employment. On objection being raised by the wife (revisionist), on 29.07.2014 the opposite party No. 2 abused her and committed marpit with her and she was also driven out from home with her minor children in lap.
5. It has also been alleged by the revisionist in her application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that since 29.07.2014 she is living with her parents and the opposite party No. 2 does not pay any maintenance amount to her and her minor children. It is also stated therein that the opposite party No. 2 (the present husband of the revisionist) has got 15 bighas of land in his share, he runs milk business and a general merchant shop and earns Rs. 20,000/- per month. The revisionist is his legally wedded wife. It is the duty of the opposite party No. 2 to maintain his wife and minor children, therefore, he be directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the revisionist and Rs. 5,000/- per month from the education of minor children i.e. in total Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance amount.
6. The opposite party No. 2 has filed objection paper No. 18 Ga denying the allegations made by the revisionist (wife)that his brother, Akshay, died in an accident. The allegation of murder is baseless. He denied his marriage with revisionist nor any paper regarding marriage has been brought on record by the revisionist (wife). The alleged marriage is not proved. It is further submitted that the revisionist due to grab landed property has filed this false case. The relation between opposite party No. 2 and revisionist is only of Devar and Bhabhi and not that of husband and wife. It is also denied that she was driven out from home on 29.07.2014 with a two years old child in her lap. His father has executed a sale deed in respect of 9 bighas of land in favour of her two minor children, but she wants to be the owner of the entire property and wants to sell out the same to give money to her parents so that her marriage could be solemnized at some other place. After civil litigations being instituted by her, the family members of the opposite party No. 2 pressurised the opposite party No. 2 to marry her so that all the litigations be lifted by her. But just after this marriage, she started to make pressure upon the opposite party No. 2 that she will live with him only when he gives her his house, land and 40 Lakhs of rupees. It has also been stated in his objection that the opposite party No. 2 is an less educated unemployed youth and is dragged into courts without any evidence against him. It is also deposed that revisionist is not his wife, therefore, there is no question of any maintenance amount to be given to her. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. deserves to be rejected.
7. In her examination in chief she has stated that she was earlier married to Akshay who was murdered by her in-laws and was run over by tractor and her mother-in-law, father-in-law and hushand Alok Kumar to remain safe from criminal case of murder, her marriage was got solemnized with opposite party No. 2, Alok Kumar. It has also been deposed that since the date of marriage he is maltreating her and is demanding a motorcycle and three lakhs of rupees from her and her parents. She has reiterated the contents of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in her examination in chief and demanded Rs. 10,000/- per month as maintenance amount.
8. In her statement recorded in Court she has admitted that she has filed a case of domestic violence in the Court at District Meerut against her husband (opposite party No. 2), mother-in-law and father-in-law. At last, she has stated in Court that if Alok gives her in writing that he will give her the maintenance and half of the agricultural land to her and her both children, in that event, she is ready to go and after marriage she has lived for one and half months to two months as wife with him.
9. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as after considering the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties has rejected the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and while rejecting the same the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, has recorded a categorical finding that the revisionist (wife) is living separately from her husband without any cogent reason. Nine Bighas of land has already been offered and a registered sale deed has been executed by her father-in-law in favour of her two minor children and she herself is guardian of the said agricultural property and she is receiving the income of the said land.
10. The learned counsel for revisionist submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It has been passed in a routine and mechanical manner without application of judicial mind. The revisionist has been tortured and harassed by her in-laws for want of dowry. She does not receive any income from the alleged 9 Bighas of land and the alleged land given and gifted to her minor children cannot be said to be in lieu of the maintenance. The impugned judgement is liable to be set aside and the revision deserves to be allowed.
11. On the other hand, the learned AGA has supported the impugned order. It is argued by him that the learned Court below has recorded a categorical finding that the revisionist (wife) is living separately from her husband without any reason and does not deserve to any maintenance. It is also submitted by the learned AGA that it cannot be said that the revisionist (wife) is bereft of sufficient means to maintain herself because she is receiving income from the alleged 9 bighas of land offered by her father-in-law. The impugned order is perfectly just and correct and warrants no interference by this Court. The revision is liable to be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order deserves to be confirmed by this Hon'ble Court.
12. In the case of Anil Jain vs Smt. Sunita decided on 29 November, 2016 the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Bench Indore in para - 9, 10 and 11 has held thus:-
"[9] This Court has to examine the findings of Trial Court as to whether non-applicant/wife has sufficient reason to live separately and whether she is unable to maintain herself.
[10] Admittedly after marriage non-applicant/wife lived in her matrimonial home first time for 7 days. There is no allegation that during that period she was harassed by her in-laws, thereafter she lived in her matrimonial home from 11.05.2008 to 22.05.2008 i.e. for 12 days, thereafter she was forced to leave her matrimonial home. In this regard it is useful to refer Para 9 of her deposition in which she admitted that she was having a mobile phone and used to talk with her brother, however, she has not made any complaint about her harassment to her brother. She left matrimonial home with her brother Anil. But she has not made any complaint to anybody or lodged a report at Police Station. On the other hand, her brother Anil Chhajed (PW-2) deposed that on 22.05.2008 she came to Ratlam to select a girl for his marriage. Anil did not depose that non-applicant has complained him about harassment in her matrimonial home. In the cross-examination of the applicant no question was asked about alleged cruelty and harassment.
[11] I would like to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of Savita Bai (Supra) in which after marriage Savita Bai resided only for 8 days in the house of her husband and thereafter, she left the house without any reason and unable to prove the charge of harassment. Under such circumstances, this Court has held that the applicant-wife is not entitled for maintenance. In the present case also non-applicant-wife resided in her matrimonial home for the first time for 7 days and second time for 12 days and it is alleged that in these 12 days she was harassed. It is practically impossible that she could have been so harassed that it is impossible for her to live in her matrimonial home. After 12 days she had voluntarily gone with her brother with a view to select a girl for marriage of her brother. Thus, it can not be held that she was thrown with force from her matrimonial home or she was forced to leave her matrimonial home."
13. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court comes to the conclusion that the revisionist (wife) has failed to prove that she has been harassed or tortured by her husband for want of dowry. It is the admitted fact between the parties that at the time of the marriage of the revisionist and opposite party No. 2 an offer of 9 bighas of landed property was made by her father-in-law to her minor children and admittedly, that offer was fulfilled by the father-in-law by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the two minor children namely Veer Chaudhary and Neer Chaudhary, therefore, the stand taken by the wife that she has been driven out from her matrimonial house for dowry is of no help to her claim under Section 125 Cr.P.C. looking to the fact that 9 bighas of land was given to her minor children at the time of the marriage of the revisionist with opposite party namely Alok. Therefore, there was no question or occasion for the opposite party No. 2 to make demand for dowry from the revisionist or her parents. Moreover, the wife has herself admitted before the learned Family Court that she has lived with her husband Alok only for a period of one and half month to two months as wife, the relevant portion of her statement is extracted below:-
"यदि अलोक मुझे लिख कर दे कि वह मुझे खर्चा देगा और आधी जमीन मेरे व मेरे बच्चों के नाम हो जाएगी तो मैं जाने के लिए तैयार हूँ . अलोक से शादी के बाद मैं डेढ़ दो माह बतौर पत्नी उसके साथ रही."
14. Thus, the assertion made by the wife that she was maltreated or misbehaved by her husband Alok did not find favour with the learned Principal Judge, Family Court. From her statement it is also evident that she is not behaving like a wife but is insisting upon the division of the landed property by her husband and in-laws, which is not just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case set by her by way of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
15. The learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any factual or legal error in the judgment impugned in this revision.
16. In the result, the impugned judgment and order dated 06.11.2018 is hereby confirmed. The revision stands dismissed.
17. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.9.2020 LBY