Allahabad High Court
Anuj Sharma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:85025 Court No. - 69 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 825 of 2024 Revisionist :- Anuj Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Sunil Kumar Saroj Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
In Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent, and perused the record.
2. Cause shown for delay is sufficient.
3. The delay in filing the instant revision is condoned, accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed.
In Re: Revision
4. The instant revision has been heard and is decided on the first date of hearing without issuing notice to the respondent-wife, because of the reasons; (i) a short issue of award of maintenance to the estranged wife is involved, (ii) it's observed in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr.1 case that maintenance is a social measure to prevent wives and children from falling into destitution and vagrancy, (iii) if maintenance is not paid timely, it defeats the very object of the social welfare legislation, (iv) the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on 25.09.2020 and was decided on 17.01.2024, since then not even a single penny has been paid to the respondent-wife.
5. The instant criminal revision has been preferred assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 17.01.2024, passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun, in Criminal Misc. Case No.858 of 2020, titled as Smt. Soni Sharma v. Anuj Sharma, under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
6. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that respondent-wife had preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for award of maintenance on 25.09.2020. The Principal Judge, Family Court, after conducting summary proceedings, awarded Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife, from the date of filing of an appliation, under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
7. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.01.2024, the revisionist-husband has preferred the instant revision petition.
8. Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist-husband is that the family court has passed the order in a mechanical manner without applying its judicial mind; failed to appreciate the material on record; the respondent-wife has left the matrimonial home on her own choice; the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily and the statement of the revisionist-husband has not been considered; the finding of facts recorded by the Family Court on an evidence are not available on record; the evidence put-forth by the respondent-wife are not admissible; the instant proceedings are abuse of process of law, and the findings are perverse and erroneous.
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra2, has held that normally a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the court. Merely an apprehension or suspicion of the same would not be a sufficient ground for interference in such cases.
10. From perusal of the record, it transpires that on 29.06.2020, the parties have solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals, and the parents of respondent-wife has given dowry articles as per their capacity, but the in-laws were not satisfied. After the marriage, the in-laws of respondent-wife started raising dowry demand and torturing her, and forced her to leave her matrimonial home, thereafter litigation started between the parties. On the basis of testimony of the respondent-wife, it reveals that revisionist-husband is Software Engineer, besides, he has 3 house and from all sources he earns Rs.48,000/- per month. The record reveals that the husband has not filed the affidavit of assets and liability as mandated in Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr. (supra) case, thus, it could sfaely be assessed that the husband has concealed the actual source of income from his non sources before the Court, thus, Principal Judge, Family Court has rightly come to a conclusion to award Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent-wife from the date of filing of an appliation, under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
11. For the aforesaid reasons and having heard learned counsel for the revisionist-husband, and having gone through the record as well as the impugned order, no material illegality or impropriety has been observed by this Court, and this Court cannot go into the re-examination/re-appreciation of the evidence comeforth during the summary proceedings, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court.
12. The instant revision petition lacks merit, and is accordingly, dismissed.
13. However, it is directed to the learned Family Judge to ensure timely execution of impugned order of maintenace dated 17.01.2024 strictly in accordance with Rajnesh v. Neha case (supra), and Rajesh Babu Saxena v. State of U.P. and another3 case, whichever is applicable in the facts-circumstances of the instant case.
14. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned forthwith for compliance.
Order Date :- 10.5.2024 S.A. Justice Vinod Diwakar