# Major Ankur Gupta Revisionist v. State of U.P. And Anr

- **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 724
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 535 of 2017
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/major-ankur-gupta-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-and-anr-44546
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Criminal Revision- Section 125 Cr.P.C.-
Husband well posted in Indian Army-
Claim of wife's earning - not proved by
the husband - obligation of husband to
maintain her - personal responsibility of
husband to maintain her after divorce-
revision dismissed.

B. Report of Pacific Detective Agency-
wife a school teacher- drawing salary of
Rs. 12,000/- per month. Held:- Report of
a private detective is admissible in court
but it need to be proved and examined in
evidence.

Chronological list of Cases Cited: -
AIR 1975 SC 83 Bhagwandutt Vs. Kamla Devi
 (E-10)

## Text

724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there is no dispute with regards to fact
that the husband has sufficient means and
income as he is highly posted in Indian
Army. It is also pertinent to mention that
object of Section 125 Cr.P.C is to prevent
destitution in wife who may have been
even divorced. The husband is under
obligation to give maintenance to the
divorced wife who by herself is not able
to maintain herself. It is husband's moral
obligation which he owes to the society in
respect of his wife and children, so that
they are not left beggared and to prevent
destitution as without financial support
she may be driven to a life of vagrancy,
immorality and crime for her subsistence.

15. It is pertinent to mention here
that maintenance of wife is the personal
responsibility of the husband and the
maintenance should be in consonance
with the living status of wife. Admittedly,
she is the daughter of Junior Engineer and
she has no income and she is living
separately from husband, considering this
fact, the court below awarded Rs. 8000/-
per month as maintenance to opposite
party no.2. The husband is legally bound
to provide maintenance to his wife as
awarded by the court below to the tune of
Rs. 8000/- per month which looking to the
present price index can not be said to be
excessive.

16. In view of the above, I find no
illegality, infirmity and perversity in the
impugned order passed by the learned
court below. The instant revision is,
accordingly, dismissed.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Revision No. 535 of 2017

Major Ankur Gupta ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. And Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Uday Chandani

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Amrendra Nath Rai, Sri Sanjay
Singh.

A. Criminal Revision- Section 125 Cr.P.C.-
Husband well posted in Indian Army-
Claim of wife's earning - not proved by
the husband - obligation of husband to
maintain her - personal responsibility of
husband to maintain her after divorce-
revision dismissed.

B. Report of Pacific Detective Agency-
wife a school teacher- drawing salary of
Rs. 12,000/- per month. Held:- Report of
a private detective is admissible in court
but it need to be proved and examined in
evidence.

Chronological list of Cases Cited: -
AIR 1975 SC 83 Bhagwandutt Vs. Kamla Devi
 (E-10)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Uday Chandani, learned
counsel for the revisionist, Shri Sanjay Singh,
learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and
learned A.G.A for the State.

2. This revision has been filed
against the impugned judgement and
order dated 18.01.2017 in Criminal Misc.
Case No. 1455 of 2014 passed by
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly
by which opposite party no. 2 (wife) has
1 All. Major Ankur Gupta Vs. State of U.P. And Anr.
725
been
awarded
maintenance
of
Rs.
20,000/- per month since 15.12.2014.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned order
this revision has been filed challenging
the same, that the order is arbitrary, illegal
and against the provisions of Section 125
Cr.P.C. No effective opportunity was
provided to the revisionist before passing
of the impugned order by the learned
court
below,
order
is
unjust
and
unsustainable in the eyes of law. Income
of the wife has not been considered and
the evidence on that point has been
ignored in a very cursory manner. There
was no evidence against the revisionist
husband
but
the
maintenance
was
awarded to the wife which is liable to be
set aside.

4. Before the learned court below, the
wife filed an application under Section 125
Cr.P.C claiming that she was married on
07.03.2006 with the opposite party according
to Hindu rituals and by their wedlock two
daughters were born who are applicant nos. 2
and 3, in respect of whom the wife has made a
request before learned court below for not
awarding maintenance in favour of them as
they are getting Rs. 15,000/- per month each
from their father. The wife has stated that
behaviour of the husband was not good and
she was put to harassment and lastly she lived
with him till 13.10.2014 in Gaya Bihar from
where he was transferred to Nagpur. He left
her in Bareilly saying that he would take her
to
Nagpur
after
making
necessary
arrangements. Thereafter, on 26.10.2014, the
husband came along with his parents and
announced his decision not to take her along
with her children with him to Nagpur.
Husband was not prepared to live with her
and he sent an ex-parte divorce decree which
was obtained by him on the basis of false and
fake allegations. The wife has no means of
livelihood whereas the husband is on a very
good position in Indian Army and is drawing
a salary of about Rs. 1,00,000/- per month and
in addition to that he has several facilities in
terms of subsidized fooding and travelling
along with residence. He is liable to pay
maintenance to her, therefore, Rs. 30,000/- be
awarded in her favour as maintenance.

5. Husband has admitted marriage in
his
written
statement
with
the
applicant/opposite party no. 2 and birth of
two daughters out of their wedlock. He
has further stated that he is a permanent
resident of Lucknow and his father Dr.
Suresh Chand Gupta got retired from the
post of C.M.O. Applicant after marriage
came to his parents and he found that her
behaviour with parents and his younger
sister was very arrogant and cruel and she
used to misbehave with them. He went
with her to Goa for honeymoon but she
continued insisting to come back to
Bareilly and she also misbehaved with
him.
He
was
being
mentally
and
physically harassed by his wife and even
after the birth of two daughters, she used
to quarrel with his family members and
she made complaints to his superior
officers. She is an educated women and
has received education of B.Ed and
M.B.A and she is working as a teacher in
a school and earning Rs. 15,000/- per
month and by tuition also she is earning
and therefore, her income easily comes to
Rs. 25,000/- per month, therefore, her
application is liable to be rejected.

6. It appears from the pleadings of the
parties that the marriage between the two is an
admitted fact. It also appears that he has
obtained divorce and at present the wife is
living separately with her parents. It is also
admitted fact that the husband is working on a
very high post in Indian Army and it cannot
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be doubted that he must be drawing a very
handsome salary. So far as maintenance to the
wife is concerned, it has been no where
alleged by the husband that any maintenance
is been provided by him to the wife. Wife is
living with her parents, therefore, the financial
ability of the husband to pay maintenance is
established.

7. Only thing which has to be seen
whether the wife has sufficient reason for
living separately from her husband and
whether she has her own income which is
sufficient for her living and livelihood.

8. Once, it is admitted that the
husband has divorced applicant/opposite
party no. 2 (wife) and has entered into
another marriage, it gives reasonable
ground to the wife to live separately, her
living separately with her parents is
totally justified.

9. It is pertinent to mention that
Section 125 Cr.P.C is a measure of social
justice and it is intended to protect the
wife and her children who has no means
to maintain herself. It has been held in
Bhagwandutt Vs. Kamla Devi, AIR
1975 SC 83, that while assessing the
amount of maintenance under Section 125
Cr.P.C, the Magistrate is required to
consider the standard of living and
background of the wife along-with the
status of her family. The needs and
requirements of the wife should be in
consonance with her own income, if any,
and the earning of the husband and his
commitment as husband. In this case,
there is no dispute with regards to fact
that the husband has sufficient means and
income as he is highly posted in Indian
Army. It is also pertinent to mention that
object of Section 125 Cr.P.C is to prevent
destitution in wife who may have been
even divorced. The husband is under
obligation to give maintenance to the
divorced wife who by herself is not able
to maintain herself. It is husband's moral
obligation which he owes to the society in
respect of his wife and children, so that
they are not left beggared and to prevent
destitution as without financial support
she may be driven to a life of vagrancy,
immorality and crime for her subsistence.

10. It has been alleged by the
husband that the wife is working in school
and her income is Rs. 25,000/- per month.
This fact was to be proved by the
husband. From the perusal of the
impugned judgement, it appears that on
the basis of evidence on record the
learned court below found that the
allegation that the wife is having income
as a school teacher has not been proved
by cogent evidence and in order to prove
the same, no salary slip has been filed. He
(husband) has relied on a photograph
which appears to have been of a school, in
which the wife's picture has been shown
and on that basis the husband claims that
his wife is a teacher in that particular
school. Being a teacher in a school is one
thing but she is a teacher on some
payment as alleged by the husband is
entirely a different thing. Only on the
basis of picture of a school it cannot be
established that she has her own income
as a teacher as alleged by the husband.
Merely because the wife is educated, it
cannot be said that she is earning.

11. Husband has further relied on
report of Pacific Detective Agency in
which it has been mentioned that the wife
is a teacher and is drawing Rs. 12,000/-
per month but the detective who has
submitted the report has not been
examined in evidence. It is a report of a
1 All. Puneet Gupta Vs. State of U.P. And Anr.
727
private detective and by no means, it can
be said that it is a document which is
admissible in evidence without formal
proof. Therefore, detective report could
also not help the contention of the
husband that the wife is a school teacher
and is earning.

12. On the basis of above discussion, I
find that in view of the status of the parties
and the financial capacity of the husband, the
wife has been awarded maintenance of Rs.
20,000/- per month which is by no means in
higher side. It is personal responsibility of the
husband to pay maintenance to the wife
whether the marriage continues or dissolved.
Therefore, I find no material irregularity or
illegality in the impugned judgement nor
there is any jurisdictional error. Revision has
got no force and is liable to be dismissed.

13.

Revision
is
dismissed
accordingly.
--------
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Criminal Revision No. 1463 of 2019

Puneet Gupta ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. And Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri M.J. Akhtar, Sri V.M. Zaidi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Adesh Kumar.

A.
Section
319
Cr.P.C.-trial
court
empowered to proceed against any
person not shown as accused
The power envisaged under Section 319 of
Cr.P.C. should be exercised based on evidence
stronger
than
mere
probability
of
his
complicity against any person. (Para 16)

B. Indian Evidence Act- Section 65-B-
admissibility of electronic record- highly
risky to blindly rely
Chronological list of Cases Cited:-

1. 2014 (3) SCC 92 Hardeep Singh V State of
Punjab

2. 2017 SCC, page 706 Brijendra Singh and
other V State of Rajasthan

3. Criminal Appeal No. 1349 of 2018 arising
out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 6392 of 2018 Labhuji
Amratji and others Vs. State of Gujrat and
other

4. Ciminal Appeal No. 456 of 2019 arising out
of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 208 of 2019 Periyasami and
Ors. Vs. S. Nallasamy

5. 2019 LawSuit (SC) 818 Sugreev Kumar Vs.
State of Punjab (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Sri VM Zaidi, learned
senior Advocate assisted by Sri MJ
Akhtar for the revisionist, Sri Adesh
Kumar, learned counsel for private
opposite party, learned AGA and perused
the record.

2. By means of the instant
revisionist, the revisionist has targeted
judgement and order dated 08.03.2019
passed by the II-Additional Session
Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Meerut
in S.T. No. 21 of 2018 (State v. Sonu and
others), arising out of Crime No. 206 of
2018, under section 319 Cr.P.C. whereby
the applicant Puneet Gupta s/o Harikishan
Gupta and along with one Bharat Bhushan
s/o Kailash Chand were summoned under
sections 376-D IPC and 3(2)(V) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes