# Anup Sahani Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties - **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 324 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-11-05 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1858 of 2020 - **Bench:** Ram Krishna Gautam - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anup-sahani-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-45403 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote order passed directiong Rs.3000/- as maintainance to wife-alleged violation of natural justice as objection was not considered-alleges mandatory provision of calling report from District probation Officer not complied-3000/- is a meagre amount and Revisionist is duty bound to maintain his wife. Revision dismissed. (E-9) List of Cases Cited:- ## Text 324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES also does not fall in any of the categories recognized by the Apex Court which might justify interference by this Court in order to upset or quash them. ---------- (2020)11ILR A324 REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.11.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J. Criminal Revision No. 1858 of 2020 Anup Sahani ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri S.K. Srivastava Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A. Impugned order passed directiong Rs.3000/- as maintainance to wife-alleged violation of natural justice as objection was not considered-alleges mandatory provision of calling report from District probation Officer not complied-3000/- is a meagre amount and Revisionist is duty bound to maintain his wife. Revision dismissed. (E-9) List of Cases Cited:- 1. Kirtikant D adodaria Vs St. of Guj. (1996) 4 SCC 2.Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel Vs Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel & ors. (2008) 4 SCC 3.Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs Meena & ors. (2015) 6 SCC 353 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam, J.) 1. This Criminal Revision, under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by Anup Sahani, with a prayer for setting aside the impugned orders dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, P.O.C.S.O. Act-3, Gorakhpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2018, Anup Sahani vs. State of U.P. and another, under Section, 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as well as order dated 08.02.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 4, Gorakhpur, in case No. 61 of 2016, Smt. Sangam Devi vs. Anup Sahani and others, under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, Police Station-Gorakhnath, District-Gorakhpur. 2. Learned counsel for applicant argued, that both of the Courts below failed to appreciate facts and law placed before them and passed impugned orders, which are apparently erroneous on the face of it. There is under exercise of jurisdiction vested in both the above Courts. The impugned order is under violation of natural justice. Objection was raised before the trial Court. But the same were not considered and an amount of Rs. 3,000/-, as maintenance, per month, was directed to be paid to the opposite party no. 2 from the date of application i.e. 30.10.2017 and it was illegal. There is mandatory provision under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, that firstly the report of District Probation Officer is to be called for and thenafter, case is to be initiated. But, this was not obeyed, hence, the order was challenged before the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 2018, Anup Sahani vs. State of U.P., wherein, again reiteration was there but, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision, with above prayer. 11 All. Anup Sahani Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 325 3. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed stating that a meagre amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month was directed to be paid and this revision has been filed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and gone through the material placed on record, it is apparent, that a complaint was filed by Smt. Sangam Devi, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, with this contention that her marriage was performed with Anup Sahani, as per Hindu rituals on 20.05.2013. She was performing her matrimonial obligations. But, Anup Sahani and his family members made a demand of Rs. 2,000,00/- as additional dowry, which was beyond the capacity of Smt. Sangam Devi and her family members. This resulted annoyance and cruelty with Smt. Sangam Devi. She was compelled to reside in a room of upper stairs. Her father-in-law committed rape with her. A threat was extended. Subsequently, She was sexually exploited and ousted on 08.11.2014 and since then she is residing at her parental house. A Case Crime No. 10 of 2015 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 406, 376 I.P.C. read with Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, was registered at Police Station-Mahila Thana, Gorakhpur. It was submitted that Anup Sahani was maintaining a shop of light and sound in Gorakhpur and he was earning Rs. 30,000/- per month. His father, is a retired Railway employee, getting pension but, the complainant was with no means and was living in misery, hence, maintenance, in the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month, with the right of residence was claimed. Wherein, an application for grant of interim maintenance, under Section 23 of the Act was moved. The contention of the same was in corroboration to many contentions. Anup Sahani, filed his objection, mentioning that the father of the applicant was an agriculturist and having means for maintaining the applicant. The alleged shop of light and sound was of brother-in-law of Anup Sahani. She was earning Rs. 1200/- per day by tailoring. After hearing both the sides, the Magistrate awarded for interim maintenance in the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month, against which a Criminal Appeal was filed. Wherein, same contention was made, as in this Criminal Revision, with further allegation of loose character of applicant, and Appellate Court dismissed this Appeal. Against which this Revision has been filed. 5. Admittedly, Smt. Sangam Devi is married wife of Anup Sahani. There is criminal litigation pending in between. There is matrimonial discard in between. She is residing at her parental house. No specific proof of her income is there. She is not being maintained by the revisionist. She had claimed for her maintenance and a maintenance of meagre amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month, i.e. Rs. 100/- per day, has been awarded, as interim maintenance. It is a meagre amount and being husband the revisionist is duty bound to maintain his wife and he always remains under obligation to maintain his wife which does not arise by reason of any contract, express or implied, but out of jural relationship of husband and wife consequent to the performance of marriage. Such an obligation of the husband, to maintain his wife, arises irrespective of the fact whether he has or has no property. It is an imperative duty and a solemn obligation of the husband to maintain his wife. This has been propounded by the Apex Court in Kirtikant D adodaria vs. State of Gujarat (1996) 4 SCC and Vimlaben Ajitbhai Patel vs. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel and others (2008) 4 SCC, which has been mentioned by the learned Appellate Court in its judgment. 326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 6. The Apex Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh vs Meena & Ors (2015) 6 SCC 353, in para 2 has held: "Regard being had to the solemn pledge at the time of marriage and also in consonance with the statutory law that governs the field, it is the obligation of the husband to see that the wife does not become a destitute, a beggar. A situation is not to be maladroitly created whereunder she is compelled to resign to her fate and think of life ?dust unto dust?. It is totally impermissible. In fact, it is the sacrosanct duty to render the financial support even if the husband is required to earn money with physical labour, if he is able bodied. There is no escape route unless there is an order from the Court that the wife is not entitled to get maintenance from the husband on any legally permissible grounds." 7. In above law and facts of the present case, there is no failure of appreciation of facts and law, nor any under exercise or over exercise or mis-exercise of jurisdiction in both the impugned orders. 8. Accordingly, this Revision merits dismissal. Dismissed as such. ---------- (2020)11ILR A326 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.10.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J. THE HON'BLE SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH, J. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 2470 of 2016 Babloo Srivastava @ Om Prakash Srivastava ...Petitioner (In Jail) Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Brijesh Sahai, Sri Avdhesh Kumar Tiwari, Dipti Tiwari, Sri Vijay Singh Gaur Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A., Sri Deepak Dubey. Not Known A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Pracedure- Section 161 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872- Section 25 - The Extradition Act, 1962- Section 21- The bar under Section 21 of the Act, 1962 will operate from stage of cognizance not for investigation because if certain formalities are required then it is duty of Investigation Officer to take care of them. (Para 14) The petitioner charged for kidnapping and extortion was found and arrested in Singapore. He was handed over by the Singapore Authorities under the Extradition Agreement between the Republic of India and the Singapore. The petitioner contended in view of provisions of Section 21 of the Act of 1962 that he could not be tried for the aforesaid offence as his extradition decree does not bear aforesaid crime number. To which the Court held that the formality of the provision of Section 21 of the Act, 1962 are for trial and not for investigation. The stage of investigation is prior to the stage of cognizance and the trial.(Para 5, 9, 12, 13) Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10) List of Cases cited:- 1. Daya Singh Lahoriya Vs Union of India & ors.. (2001) 4 SCC 516 2. Abu Salem Vs St. of Mah. (2010) 11 SCC 214 3. Swiss Timing Limited Vs CBI Criminal M.C. No. 18 of 2012 (Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J. & Hon'ble Shamsher Bahadur Singh, J.) 1. Heard Shri Brijesh Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State.