# Smt. Jamuna & Ors. Revisionists v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 950
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3977 of 2022
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh - I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-jamuna-ors-revisionists-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-51874
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Against
maintenance order - From St.ment of
P.W.1, it is evident that she was subjected
to mental and physical cruelty by her
husband and in-laws for not bringing
additional dowry and expelled from her
matrimonial home, after which she has
been residing separately - P.W.2, mother
of revisionist No.1, corroborated same,
stating that demand was for opening a
hotel for husband, and that he has neither
maintained his wife nor their daughters -
In cross-examination, P.W.2 deposed that
revisionist earlier lived in Talabpura on
rent and presently resides with her, and
that
she
bears
maintenance
and
educational expenses of her daughter and
granddaughters from her income earned
by selling vegetables - Trial Court has
misinterpreted
deposition
of
P.W.1
regarding her residence with her motherin-law - From her St.ment, it appears that
she earlier resided with her mother-in-law
but is now living separately on rent in
same village, maintaining herself and her
daughters from her own earnings and
financial assistance from her mother -
Revisionist No.1 is residing separately
from her husband for valid reasons -
Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 have supported
their pleadings regarding profession and
income of opposite party No.2, no oral or
documentary evidence adduced in this
regard - Hence, it cannot be concluded
that opposite party No.2 is engaged as
4 All. Smt. Jamuna & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
951
Halwai and earns ₹30,000/- pm - Opposite
party No.2 has not St.d in his written
St.ment or deposition that, due to any
special circumstances, he is unable to
maintain his wife and daughters - Hence,
it can be concluded that his earnings from
manual labour are sufficient to provide
maintenance to them - Impugned order is
erroneous,
set
aside
-
Directions
accordingly. (Para 13,15,16,19)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14 SCC 200, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
followed the quantum of maintenance fixed
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kulbhushan
Kumar (supra) that 25% of net income of
the husband should be paid to the wife as
maintenance.

24. Following the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, it
would be reasonable to fix Rs.3,750/- as
monthly maintenance allowance to Smt.
Maya Devi, wife of opposite party no. 2.

25. In view of the aforesaid factual
and legal aspect, I am of the view that the
order impugned dated 06.05.2023 is
erroneous and cannot survive in the eyes of
law, therefore, I set-aside the impugned
order for the aforesaid reasons.

26. Thus, opposite party no.2 shall
pay Rs.3,750/- per month as maintenance
allowance to his wife, revisionist Smt.
Maya Devi from the date of filing of
application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The arrears of
maintenance allowance shall be paid by the
opposite party no.2 in four equal amounts
within a period of six months. The monthly
interim maintenance shall be paid regularly
till 7th day of each month. The amount of
maintenance allowance already paid to the
revisionist shall be adjusted in this amount.

27. The present criminal revision is
allowed in terms of above mentioned
conditions.

28. The copy of the order be sent to
the trial court concerned forthwith for
necessary compliance.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 950
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH - I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3977 of 2022

Smt. Jamuna & Ors. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionists:
Sri Jaysingh Yadav

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Ved Prakash Ojha

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Against
maintenance order - From St.ment of
P.W.1, it is evident that she was subjected
to mental and physical cruelty by her
husband and in-laws for not bringing
additional dowry and expelled from her
matrimonial home, after which she has
been residing separately - P.W.2, mother
of revisionist No.1, corroborated same,
stating that demand was for opening a
hotel for husband, and that he has neither
maintained his wife nor their daughters -
In cross-examination, P.W.2 deposed that
revisionist earlier lived in Talabpura on
rent and presently resides with her, and
that
she
bears
maintenance
and
educational expenses of her daughter and
granddaughters from her income earned
by selling vegetables - Trial Court has
misinterpreted
deposition
of
P.W.1
regarding her residence with her motherin-law - From her St.ment, it appears that
she earlier resided with her mother-in-law
but is now living separately on rent in
same village, maintaining herself and her
daughters from her own earnings and
financial assistance from her mother -
Revisionist No.1 is residing separately
from her husband for valid reasons -
Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 have supported
their pleadings regarding profession and
income of opposite party No.2, no oral or
documentary evidence adduced in this
regard - Hence, it cannot be concluded
that opposite party No.2 is engaged as
4 All. Smt. Jamuna & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
951
Halwai and earns ₹30,000/- pm - Opposite
party No.2 has not St.d in his written
St.ment or deposition that, due to any
special circumstances, he is unable to
maintain his wife and daughters - Hence,
it can be concluded that his earnings from
manual labour are sufficient to provide
maintenance to them - Impugned order is
erroneous,
set
aside
-
Directions
accordingly. (Para 13,15,16,19)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Rajnesh Vs Neha & anr., (2021) 2 SCC 324

2. Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi Vs Pyla Suri
Demudu & anr.: (2011) 12 SCC 189

3. Chander Parkash Vs Shrimati Shila Rani: 1968
SCC Online Del 52

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh - I, J.)

By means of the instant criminal
revision, revisionists have assailed the
judgement and order dated 12.07.2022
passed by Principal Judge, Family Court,
Lalitpur in Case No.49 of 2016 (Smt.
Jamuna and others vs. Akhlesh), under
Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. By the impugned order, trial Court
has
rejected
the
application
of
the
revisionists filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
on the ground that revisionist no.1 along
with her two daughters are residing with
her mother-in-law and opposite party No.2
(husband) has given expenses to his wife
and two minor children.

3. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the revisionists that
marriage of the revisionist No.1 (Smt.
Jamuna) was solemnized with opposite
party No.2 (Akhilesh) on 26.06.2007
according to Hindu Rites and Rituals. In
the said marriage, parents of the revisionist
No.1 had given sufficient dowry according
to their capacity. The opposite party No.2
(husband) and in-laws of the revisionist
No.1 were not satisfied with the dowry
given to them in the marriage and they
demanded Rs.1,50,000/-, but on nonfulfilment of the additional dowry, they
mentally and physically tortured revisionist
no. 1. Out of wedlock of the revisionist
No.1 and opposite party No.2, two female
children were born, namely, Km. Lali, aged
about 12 years and Km. Kiriti, aged about
10 years. After the birth of two female
children, husband and in-laws of the
revisionist
No.1
intensified
their
harassment for bringing of Rs.1,50,000/- as
additional dowry and they also started
beating and threatening for divorce. It has
also been submitted that opposite party
No.2 is a good confectioner and earns
Rs.30,000/- per month by taking contract in
marriages and other functions. It has also
been submitted that revisionist No.1 has
claimed Rs.15,000/- per month for herself
and Rs.4000/- per month each for her two
minor daughters as maintenance allowance.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for
the opposite party No.2 has opposed the
prayer of the revisionists and submitted that
trial court has passed the impugned order
on evidence on record and there is no
illegality in the impugned order.

5. In the written statement opposite
party No.2 (husband) has admitted his
marriage with revisionist No.1 and also
admitted that two daughters were born out
of their wedlock, but he has denied that
revisionist
No.1
was
harassed
and
pressurised to bring Rs. 1,50,000/- in
dowry. Opposite party No.2 also denied
that
he
is
confectioner
and
earns
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rs.30,000/-
per
month
from
his
professional work. He also admitted that he
is a labour and earns Rs.100-150/- per day
as remuneration and revisionist No.1 earns
about Rs.15,000/- per month from tailoring
and embroidery and she is residing along
with her two daughters in his house.

6. Heard Sri Jaysingh Yadav, learned
counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A.
for the State and Sri Ved Prakash Ojha,
learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

7. Factual matrix of the case, in
brief, is that marriage of the revisionist
No.1 (Smt. Jamuna) was solemnized with
opposite
party
No.2
(Akhilesh)
on
26.06.2007 according to Hindu Rites and
Rituals. In the said marriage, parents of
the revisionist No.1 had given sufficient
dowry according to their capacity. The
opposite party No.2 (husband) and in-laws
of the revisionist No.1 were not satisfied
with the dowry given to them in the
marriage
and
they
demanded
Rs.1,50,000/-, but on non-fulfilment of the
additional dowry, they started torturing
revisionist
No.1
both
mentally
and
physically. Out of wedlock of
the
revisionist No.1 and opposite party No.2,
two female children were born, namely,
Km. Lali and Km. Kiriti. After the birth of
two female children, husband and in-law
of the revisionist No.1 intensified their
harassment for bringing of Rs.1,50,000/-
as additional dowry and they also started
beating and threatening for divorce. It has
also been submitted that opposite party
No.2 is a good confectioner and earns
Rs.30,000/- per month by taking contract
in marriages and other functions.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another,
(2021) 2 SCC 324 has held that;

"Maintenance laws have been
enacted as a measure of social justice to
provide recourse to dependant wives and
children for their financial support, so as
to
prevent
them
from
falling
into
destitution and vagrancy. Article 15(3) of
the Constitution of India provides that:-

"Nothing in this article shall
prevent the State from making any special
provision for women and children.

Article
15(3)
reinforced
by
Article 39 of the Constitution of India,
which envisages a positive role for the
State in fostering change towards the
empowerment of women, led to the
enactment of various legislations from
time to time."

9. The trial Court while recording its
finding on the issue no.2 that whether the
revisionist No.1 is residing away from her
husband due to reasonable cause, trial
Court has relied on the averments made in
the evidence of P.W.1 (revisionist No.1)
that revisionist No.1 residing with her
mother-in-law along with her two minor
daughters. On this point, trial Court has
held :-

" इस संबंि में प्राधर्थजया ने बतौर
ए.पी.डब्िू.1 अपने साक्ष्य में किा िै हक िि
आज भी अपनी सास के सार्थ धनिास कर रिी िै
तर्था उसके बच्चों भी उसकी के सार्थ रि रिे िै।
मुझे नझाई बाजार में रामस्िरूप के यिां से
रािन धमिता िै। इस प्रकार स्पष्ट िै हक
ए.पी.डब्िू. 1 ने विपक्षी के द्वारा दाम्खि
जिाबदािा में इस बात की पुवष्ट की िै हक
"प्राधर्थजया आज भी मेरे घर में धनिास कर रिी िै
और ििीं उसका खचाज उठा रिे िै।" प्राधर्थजया
अपनी सास के सार्थ धनिास करती िै और बच्चे
4 All. Smt. Jamuna & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
953
उसके सार्थ धनिास करते िै। इस बात को ना
केिि ए.पी.डब्िू. 1ने स्िीकार हकया िै। बम्लक,
ओ.पी.डब्िू.1 ि 2 ने इस बात को अपनी
प्रधतपरीक्षा में किा िै। ओ.पी.डब्िू.1 ि 2 से की
गयी प्रधतपरीक्षा में कोई भी ऐसा प्रश्न उभर निी
आया। म्जससे इस बात की पुवष्ट िो हक प्राधर्थजया
आज की धतधर्थ में अपने बच्चों सहित ससुराि
में सास के सार्थ धनिास ना कर रिी िो। उपरोि
से स्पष्ट िै हक प्राधर्थजया पृर्थक धनिास निी कर
रिी िै। "

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi
vs. Pyla Suri Demudu and Another:
(2011) 12 SCC 189 has held that in the
revision against the order passed under
Section 125 Cr.P.C., the revisional Court is
not required to enter into reappreciation of
evidence recorded in the order granting
maintenance. But where finding is a
negative one, the High Court would
entertain
the
revision
revaluate
the
evidence and come to a conclusion whether
the finding reached by the Magistrate are
legally sustainable or not. In case where the
trial Court has rejected the claim of the
wife, minor child and aged parents and
dismissed their application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance, the revisional
Court has jurisdiction to consider the
finding of facts recorded by the trial Court
and come to a different conclusion for it.

11.

Revisionist
No.1
in
her
application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has
made averments that in her matrimonial
home, her husband (opposite party No.2)
and in-laws used to physically and mentally
harass her for obtaining Rs.1,50,000/- as
dowry so that her husband could establish
his own hotel. She also deposed in her
evidence that as she could not bring the
additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- from her
parents, the husband as well as in-laws
were annoyed with her and started
harassing her as well as her children by not
proving sufficient food and cloths to them.
She also deposed that her husband-opposite
party No.2 solemnized marriage with one
Shivani, D/o Ram Niswas and he has
abandoned his child and he also threatened
the revisionist-Smt. Jamuna for divorce.
She also deposed that opposite party No.2
filed an application for divorce, which was
dismissed.

12. P.W.1-Smt. Jamuna in her crossexamination stated that she was not
residing with her in-laws and she is living
separately in Talabpura on rent. She also
stated that her daughters are studying in
school and she bears the expenses of her
daughters from the money given by her
mother as well as her own earnings while
doing domestic work. She has specifically
stated that on 31.12.2015, her husband
expelled her from his house.

13. From the perusal of the statement
of P.W.1-Smt. Jamuna, it appears that her
husband and in-laws used to physically or
mentally harass her as she failed to bring
additional dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- and her
husband/opposite party No.2 expelled her
from
his house
on 31.12.2015
and
thereafter, she is residing separately.
P.W.2-Gaurabai (mother of the revisionist
No.1) has corroborated the statement of
P.W.1 with the averments that due to
failure of her daughter to bring additional
dowry of Rs.1,50,000/- from her parents for
opening a hotel for her husband, she was
expelled from the house of her husband and
her husband has not provided maintenance
to his wife and daughters. P.W.2 in her
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cross-examination has deposed that her
daughter earlier used to reside in Talabpura
on rent and currently she is residing with
her and she bears the expenses of
maintenance of her daughters as well her
grand daughters for education from her
earnings by selling vegetables.

14. For careful perusal of the
statement of witnesses and both the parties,
it appears that Smt. Jamuna/revisionist
No.1 was physically or mentally harassed
for additional dowry and she was expelled
from her matrimonial house in the year
2015 and she is living separately and bears
the expenses of livelihood and her
daughters as well as their educational
expenses by the money given by her
mother as well as her own meagre earnings
from domestic work.

15. The trial Court has misinterpreted
the deposition of P.W.1 that she is still
living with her mother-in-law. From the
perusal of the statement of P.W.1, it
appears that earlier she used to live with
her mother-in-law and later on, she is living
separately on the rent in the same village
and she bears the expenses of herself as
well as her daughters from own earnings as
well as money provided by her mother.

16. From the aforesaid discussion, it
appears that due to sufficient reason
revisionist No.1 is residing away from his
husband. Through their deposition, P.W.1Smt. Jamuna and P.W.2 Gaurabai have
corroborated their pleadings regarding the
profession and earnings of opposite party
No.2
(husband), but
they have not
produced
any
oral
or
documentary
evidences in support of their arguments.
Under these facts and circumstances of the
case, it cannot be concluded that opposite
party No.2 is engaged in the profession of
Halwai
(sweet
maker)
and
earns
Rs.30,000/- per month.

17. In the case of Chander Parkash
vs. Shrimati Shila Rani: 1968 SCC
Online Del 52, the Delhi High Court has
held:

 "an able-bodied young man has
to be presumed to be capable of earning
sufficient money so as to be able to
reasonably maintain his wife and child
and he cannot be heard to say that he is
not in a position to earn enough to be able
to maintain them according to the family
standard. It is for such able-bodied person
to show to the Court cogent grounds for
holding that he is unable, for reasons
beyond his control, to earn enough to
discharge
his
legal
obligation
of
maintaining his wife and child."

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra) has approved
the above law laid down by the Delhi High
Court.

19. In the present case, opposite party
No.2
(husband)
has
not
made
any
averments in his written statement or his
deposition, as he, owing to special
circumstances, he is not able to earn
enough to discharge his legal obligation of
maintaining his wife and two daughters.
Therefore, it can be concluded that from
the earnings of opposite party No.2 from
doing manual labour, is earning enough to
provide maintenance to his wife and
daughters.

20. Taking cognizance of prevailing
wages in the labour market, even an
unskilled labourer earns about Rs.500/- per
day, thus it can be concluded that opposite
party No. 2 may be earning about
4 All. Tulsi Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
955
Rs.12,000/- to 14,000/- per month from his
wages. Apart from his wife, two daughters
who are aged about 12 years and 10 years
presently
are
also
to
be
provided
maintenance, therefore, opposite party No.2
shall provide 1/3rd of his monthly income
as maintenance to his wife and two
daughters. Hence, it is justified from the
evidence on record that the opposite party
No.2 be directed to provide Rs.2000/- per
month to his wife (revisionist No.1) and
Rs.1,000/- per month each to his daughters
(revisionist Nos.2 an 3), total Rs.4000/- per
month as maintenance allowance from the
date of filing of application under Section
125 Cr.P.C. as has been mandated by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra).

21. In view of the aforesaid factual
and legal aspect, I am of the view that the
order impugned dated 12.07.2022 is
erroneous and cannot survive in the eyes of
law, therefore, I set-aside the impugned
order for the aforesaid reasons.

22. It is provided that revisionist No.1
will be entitled for Rs.2,000/- per month as
maintenance allowance till her remarriage
along with Rs.1000/- per month to
revisionist Nos.2 and 3 (minor daughter of
the opposite party No.2) each till they
attain the age of majority.

23. Thus, opposite party No.2 shall be
bound to provide maintenance allowance
@ of Rs.2000/- per month to his wife
(revisionist No.1) until her remarriage and
Rs.1000/-each for his minor daughters
(revisionist Nos.2 and 3) till they attain the
age of majority, total Rs.4,000/- per month
shall be given to the revisionists from the
date
of
application.
The
arrears
of
maintenance allowance shall be paid by the
opposite party No.2 in four equal amounts
at the gap of four months. The monthly
interim maintenance shall be paid regularly
till 7th day of each month. The amount of
maintenance allowance already paid shall
be adjusted against this amount.

24. The present criminal revision is
allowed in terms of above mentioned
conditions.

25. The copy of the order be sent to
the trial Court concerned forthwith for
necessary compliance.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 955
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH - I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 4133 of 2022

Tulsi Ram ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Sachida Nand Tripathi

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri Awadhesh Kumar Yadav, G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 245, 397 &
401 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections
419,
420,
467,
468
&
471
-
U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 -
Section 9 - Revisionist challenged order dated
02.08.2022 discharging accused under Section
245 Cr.P.C. in a complaint case alleging forgery
of a will dated 15.01.1995. Court held: (1) Trial
court's discharge of accused (opposite party
nos. 2 and 3, marginal witness and writer of the
will) was justified, as complainant's evidence
under Section 244 Cr.P.C. failed to establish a
prima facie case under Sections 419, 420, 467,