# Satyendra Revisionist v. State of U.P. And Another - **Citation:** (2019) 1 ILRA 721 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2019-08-21 - **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 1544 of 2017 - **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satyendra-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-and-another-44545 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote A. Criminal Revision- Section 125 Cr.P.C.- Husband well posted in Indian Army- wife has no income - obligation of husband to maintain her - personal responsibility of husband to maintain her after divorce- revision dismissed. Chronological list of Cases Cited: - AIR 1975 SC 83 Bhagwandutt Vs. Kamla Devi (E-10) ## Text 1 All. Satyendra Vs. State of U.P. And Another 721 12. Considering the position of law laid down in the aforesaid cases and also considering the status of respondent no.2, it is directed that revisionist no. 1 would be entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance amount from respondent no.2 and likewise revisionist no. 2 would also be entitled to receive Rs.10,000/- per month. The revisionists shall be entitled for this amount excluding the amount of Rs.1500/- and Rs.750/- per month respectively awarded in their favour by the Magistrate under the Domestic Violence Act. The revisionists shall also be entitled cost of this litigation, which is determined as Rs.10,000/-. 13. The revision succeeds and is allowed. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Criminal Revision No. 1544 of 2017 Satyendra ...Revisionist Versus State of U.P. And Another ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionist: Sri Prem Shanker Prasad, Sri Bharat Singh. Counsel for the Opposite Parties: A.G.A., Sri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, Sri Samrin Naaz, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh. A. Criminal Revision- Section 125 Cr.P.C.- Husband well posted in Indian Army- wife has no income - obligation of husband to maintain her - personal responsibility of husband to maintain her after divorce- revision dismissed. 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 Sri Prem Shankar Prasad, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, learned counsel for opposite party no.2, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record. 2. The instant revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba, in Case No.73 of 2016, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt Apurnima Vs. Satyendra) whereby the application moved by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed awarding Rs.8000/- per month towards maintenance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of filing of the application, which was to be paid by the revisionist by 10th day of each month. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, revisionist has preferred this revision on the ground that the impugned order is totally unjust and incorrect as the fact that the husband has no income, has not been taken into consideration by the court below while awarding maintenance to opposite party no.2. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned court below is illegal, perverse and based on no evidence. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has always been ready and willing to keep his wife with him but she herself has left her matrimonial house and is living in her parental home without any reasonable 722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES cause. Thus, she is not entitled to get any maintenance from the revisionist. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist simply stated that the financial status and earning of the husband is too poor to pay Rs.8000/- as awarded by the court concerned to the wife. 6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has contended that the order impugned in the instant revision is just and consistence which requires no interference by this Court. 7. From the perusal of the record annexed with the revision as well as the impugned judgement, it transpires that both the parties performed their marriage on 18.04.2012 according to the Hindu rituals. It has been alleged from the side of the wife that lot of money was spent by her father. Incidentally, father of the wife was Engineer but the husband and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given by the father of opposite party no.2. They used to say that sufficient dowry had not been given to them and they used to harass her for bringing more dowry. She lived with her husband at her matrimonial house for about 10 days and discharged her matrimonial obligation as wife. Thereafter, she came back to her parent's house. 8. It has been further alleged that husband and his family members started demanding additional dowryof Rs.10,00,000/- in cash by sending message on the mobile of father of opposite party no.2 - wife and they threatened to kill her, if demand of said dowry was not fulfilled. Therefore, F.I.R. was lodged against the husband and his family members whereupon husband and family members became angry, they threw her out of her matrimonial house after committing Marpeet with her and taking away stridhan and ornaments from her. Thereafter, again in the year 2014, husband and family members went to the house of her parents and committed Marpeet about which F.I.R was lodged again against the husband and family members. After the said incident, husband and family members came to her parental house and compromised the matrimonial dispute and further assured that they would not harass her at matrimonial house. 9. On assurance being given to parents of opposite party no.2 by the husband and family members, she was sent back to her matrimonial house by her parents and remained three months at her matrimonial house. During this period, husband and family members again started harassing her by committing marpeet with her on account of nonfulfilment of additional demand of dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. When she opposed then they tried to kill her by burning . Finally on 06.03.2016. Her husband and his family members after badly beating her asked her to bring Rs.10,00,000/- from her father. 10. The wife - opposite party no.2 has neither any source of income nor skill to earn money, as such she is unable to maintain herself while her husband and his family members are having sufficient means for livelihood such as 25 Bighas of land, and they are also petty contractor of petrol and diesel by which they are earning Rs. 50,000/- per month. In addition to it, the husband is separately earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month. 1 All. Satyendra Vs. State of U.P. And Another 723 Consequently, total income of her husband and family members came to Rs.1,50,000 /- per month. Therefore, demand of Rs. 10,000/- per month has been made as maintenance to be paid to opposite party no.2 by the revisionist. 11. The fact of earning has been totally denied by the husband in his written statement. On the contrary, he has stated that the wife left her matrimonial house at her own will and is living in her parental home. The father of wife was posted as Junior Engineer in Irrigation Department. The husband has further stated that his wife refused to have relationship with him. When she was asked to explain reason then she stated that her husband was not acceptable to her and she further stated that she has relations with someone and she will not permit anyone to touch her. Thereafter, father of the wife was called and in his presence, it was revealed that she was not at all ready to live with him. She also gave threats to end her life. She left her matrimonial house on her own sweet will and she is living with her parents. Both have no relationship as husband and wife. She is accustomed to luxurious life as his father earned lot of money, therefore, she is not able to adjust herself with his family. He has further stated that he has no regular means of earning but somehow he earned money by doing work as labourer. 12. The witnesses were examined from both the sides. In her statement, opposite party no.2 - wife stated that she was harassed and marpeet was committed on her. In support whereof, F.I.R. has been filed which was lodged by her parents against the husband and his family members as documentary evidence, therefore, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, learned trial court concluded that for demand of dowry, wife was badly beaten and she was subjected to cruelty. After committing marpeet, she was thrown out of her matrimonial house and forced her to go to her parental home where she is living presently. Allegation has also been made that her husband was having relation with someone as result of which, she had to take such decision to live separately from him. There is no evidence to show that the wife has got earning capacity while she stated that she has no skill to earn. 13. The above discussions shows that marriage and wife living separately with her parents is admitted fact. It has been proved by the wife that dowry harassment and marpeet was committed with her by husband and her family family which is supported by F.I.R. lodged against them. Allegation from the side of husband that she had relations with someone else provides additional ground to wife to live separately. There is no evidence that she has any income. 14. 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, 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