# Smt. Maya Devi Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 944
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision No. 3953 of 2023
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh - I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-maya-devi-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-51873
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
498-A,
323,
504
&
506
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125
- Against maintenance order - From
perusal
of
revisional
court
record
disclosed that revisionist, filed complaint
case against opposite party no.2 and his
family members -Trial court, summoned
opposite party no.2, his father, mother,
elder brother, sister-in-law, and younger
brother to face trial - Perusal of record
further reveals that complaint was filed
prior to impugned order - Trial court's
finding denying dowry harassment is
perverse - Unrebutted evidence of P.W.1
and
P.W.2
proves
revisionist
was
expelled from her matrimonial home for
non - fulfillment of additional dowry
demand - She had just and reasonable
cause to live separately - Opposite party
no. 2 has neither pleaded nor deposed
any special circumstance disabling him
from maintaining his wife and daughters,
hence, it is inferred that his earnings
from manual labour are enough to
discharge
his legal obligation
- On
perusal of evidence adduced by both
parties, it emerges that revisionist has no
independent source of income - P.W.1
and P.W.2 St.d that opposite party no. 2
is engaged as contractor,
possesses
about 15-16 bighas of agricultural land,
and owns two houses - D.W.1 and D.W.2
deposed that opposite party no. 2 is not a
contractor but a labourer and agricultural
land stands in his father's name, yielding
approximately Rs. 60,000/- p.a, on which
three persons are dependent - However,
neither party produced any documentary
evidence substantiating their respective
claims regarding earning
- Hence,
impugned order is erroneous, set aside -
Directions accordingly. (Para 11, 12, 18,
19)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
4 All. Smt. Maya Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
945

## Text

944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
contents
of
postmortem
report
regarding death of the deceased and nature
of injuries of the deceased given in the
postmortem report, the trial court has not
given sufficient reason for framing charge
under Section 302 IPC.

19. From the above discussion, this
Court is of the opinion that the criminal
revision should be partially allowed. The
criminal revision is partially allowed and
the portion of the impugned order directing
the framing of charge under Section 302
IPC is set aside. The trial court in light of
the above discussion shall pass reasoned
order observing that apart from Section
498-A, the charge against the accused
should be framed under Section 306 IPC or
302 IPC.

20. Since much time has passed from
the date of filing of the charge-sheet, the
trial shall pass an order for framing of
charges within a period of two months in
accordance with law from the date of the
productions of a certified copy of this
order.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 944
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH - I, J.

Criminal Revision No. 3953 of 2023

Smt. Maya Devi ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Sri Narendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Sri Dev Prakash Sharma, G.A., Ms.
Priyanka Devi

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
498-A,
323,
504
&
506
-
Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 3⁄4 - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125
- Against maintenance order - From
perusal
of
revisional
court
record
disclosed that revisionist, filed complaint
case against opposite party no.2 and his
family members -Trial court, summoned
opposite party no.2, his father, mother,
elder brother, sister-in-law, and younger
brother to face trial - Perusal of record
further reveals that complaint was filed
prior to impugned order - Trial court's
finding denying dowry harassment is
perverse - Unrebutted evidence of P.W.1
and
P.W.2
proves
revisionist
was
expelled from her matrimonial home for
non - fulfillment of additional dowry
demand - She had just and reasonable
cause to live separately - Opposite party
no. 2 has neither pleaded nor deposed
any special circumstance disabling him
from maintaining his wife and daughters,
hence, it is inferred that his earnings
from manual labour are enough to
discharge
his legal obligation
- On
perusal of evidence adduced by both
parties, it emerges that revisionist has no
independent source of income - P.W.1
and P.W.2 St.d that opposite party no. 2
is engaged as contractor,
possesses
about 15-16 bighas of agricultural land,
and owns two houses - D.W.1 and D.W.2
deposed that opposite party no. 2 is not a
contractor but a labourer and agricultural
land stands in his father's name, yielding
approximately Rs. 60,000/- p.a, on which
three persons are dependent - However,
neither party produced any documentary
evidence substantiating their respective
claims regarding earning
- Hence,
impugned order is erroneous, set aside -
Directions accordingly. (Para 11, 12, 18,
19)

Revision allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
4 All. Smt. Maya Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
945
1. Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi Vs Pyla Suri
Demudu & anr., (2011) 12 SCC 189

2. Anju Garg & anr. Vs Deepak Kumar Garg,
2022 SCC Online SC 1314, (Paras 9 to 11)

3. Rajathi Vs C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326

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

5. Chander Parkash Bodh Raj Vs Shila Rani
Chander Prakash: 1968 SCC Online Del 52

6. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs Raj Kumari, (1970) 3
SCC 129

7.
Kalyan
Dey
Chaudhary
Vs
Rita
Dey
Chaudhary Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200

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

Heard Sri Narendra Kumar, learned
counsel for the revisionist and Ms.
Priyanka Devi Sharma, learned counsel for
the opposite party no. 2.

2. By means of this instant criminal
revision instituted u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C., the
revisionist has assailed the impugned
judgement and order dated 06.05.2023
passed by Principal Judge, Family Court,
Mahoba in Case No. 263 of 2021 (Smt.
Maya Devi Vs. Sunil @ Balendra) filed u/s
125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Khanna,
District- Mahoba.

3. By the impugned judgement and
order, the trial court has rejected the
revisionist's application for maintenance
filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C.

4. Averment has been made by
learned counsel for the revisionist that the
trial court has passed the impugned order
against the weight of the evidence on
record and without application of judicial
mind. It has also been submitted that in
her matrimonial home, the revisionist was
subjected
to
physical
and
mental
harassment for coercing her to bring
additional dowry from her parents. In this
regard, a Panchayat was held between the
relatives of the revisionist and opposite
party no. 2 about 15 days earlier from
filing of the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C.
but the opposite party no. 2 did not agree
to keep her without fulfilling his demand
of
aforesaid
additional
dowry
of
Rs.1,00,000/- in cash. It has also been
submitted that revisionist had instituted a
complaint case against opposite party no.
2 and his family members for harassment
and demand of dowry in which they were
summoned by the trial court under
Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. &
Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The revisionist had given oral and
documentary evidence in this regard in
the trial court but the trial court without
considering it, rejected her application u/s
125 Cr.P.C. on the ground that she is
staying separately from her husband
without any reason and she is not entitled
for maintenance.

5. Per contra, averment has been
made by learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 that the trial court has
considered the facts of the case and the
law applicable thereto and has passed a
legal order in which there is no ground
for
interference.
It
has
next
been
submitted that since the revisionist is
staying separately from her husband
without any sufficient reason, her right to
maintenance is barred u/s 125 (4) Cr.P.C.

6. Learned counsel for the
revisionist and learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 have been heard.
Perused the entire evidence present on the
revision and the impugned judgement and
order passed by the revisional court.
946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. Both the parties have admitted
in their pleadings that the revisionist was
married to opposite party no. 2 on
09.12.2020 and after marriage, she stayed
in her matrimonial home till March, 2021.
In between, she visited her parental home
for 2-3 times. The revisionist has no
children from her marriage with opposite
party no. 2. On the issue of the revisionist
staying away from her husband in her
paternal home, pleading has been made on
behalf of the revisionist that in her
matrimonial home, her husband and her inlaws used to physically and mentally harass
her for bringing Rs.1,00,000/- in cash as
additional dowry. When she failed to fulfil
their demand for additional dowry after
beating, they expelled her from her
matrimonial home in March, 2021. Since
then, she is living in her paternal home. It
has also been pleaded that about 15 days
before filing of application u/s 125 Cr.P.C.,
there was a Panchayat held between the
relatives of the revisionist and opposite
party no. 2 but the opposite party no. 2
refused to take her back to her matrimonial
home unless his demand for additional
dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- cash was fulfilled.

8. The revisionist, P.W.1 Smt. Maya
Devi and P.W.2 Kiran have corroborated
the pleadings through their deposition in
this regard. On the issue of revisionist
staying away from opposite party no. 2,
opposite party no. 2 in his written statement
has pleaded that since revisionist is B.A.
pass and he is only Class- VIII pass, the
revisionist was not prepared to stay with
him and left him. The fact that revisionist
was staying at her paternal home, he has
denied that there was any demand for
additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- against
the revisionist nor she was physically or
mentally harassed to compel her to bring
aforesaid additional dowry.

9. Learned Family Court Judge in his
impugned judgement and order has alluded
that the revisionist has not filed any other
evidence in support of her averment that
she was physically and mentally harassed
for
bringing
additional
dowry
and
ultimately expelled from her matrimonial
home on her failure to do so.

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 re-appreciation 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. From the perusal of the record of
the revisional court, it is disclosed that the
revisionist, Smt. Maya Devi has instituted a
Complaint Case No. 3290 of 2022 (Smt.
Maya Devi Vs. Sunil @ Balendra and others)
against opposite party no. 2 and his family
members. In this complaint case, the trial
court vide order dated 07.07.2023 has
summoned opposite party no. 2, Sunil @
Balendra, his father Daulat Khangar, mother
Smt. Jai Devi, elder brother Shailendra Singh,
sister-in-law and younger brother for trial u/s
498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
4 All. Smt. Maya Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
947
12. From the perusal of the
complaint case, it transpires that the
revisionist had filed the complaint case
before passing of the impugned order dated
06.05.2023 by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court. Thus, the finding of trial
court that there is no evidence that the
revisionist, Smt. Maya Devi was physically
and
mentally
harassed
for
bringing
additional dowry, is perverse and against
the evidence on record. The deposition of
P.W.1 Smt. Maya Devi and P.W.2 Kiran
which is unrebutted by their crossexamination by opposite party no. 2 shows
that the revisionist was expelled from her
matrimonial home for not being able to
fulfil the demand of additional dowry of
Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and is since then
living with her parents. She has filed the
aforesaid complaint case against opposite
party no. 2 and her in-laws for harassing
her
to
obtain
additional
dowry
of
Rs.1,00,000/-
cash.
Thus,
from
the
evidence on record, it can be inferred that
the revisionist was justified and had
reasonable ground to stay away from her
husband. The finding of the trial court in
this regard being perverse to the evidence
on record, cannot be accepted.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held
in paragraph no. 9 of the judgement in
Anju Garg and Another Vs. Deepak
Kumar Garg, 2022 SCC Online SC 1314
which is as follows :

9. .........it may be noted that
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. was conceived to
ameliorate
the
agony,
anguish
and
financial suffering of a woman who is
required to leave the matrimonial home,
so that some suitable arrangements could
be made to enable her to sustain herself
and the children, as observed by this
Court in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena.
This Court in the said case, after referring
to the earlier decisions, has reiterated the
principle of law as to how the proceedings
under Section 125 Cr.P.C have to be dealt
with by the Court. It held as under:

"In Dukhtar
Jahan v. Mohd.
Farooq [(1987) 1 SCC 624 : 1987 SCC
(Cri) 237] the Court opined that : (SCC p.
631, para 16)

16. "...
Proceedings
under
Section 125 [of the Code], it must be
remembered, are of a summary nature
and are intended to enable destitute wives
and children, the latter whether they are
legitimate
or
illegitimate,
to
get
maintenance in a speedy manner."

8.
A
three-Judge
Bench
in Vimala (K.) v. Veeraswamy (K.) [(1991)
2 SCC 375 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 442], while
discussing about the basic purpose under
Section 125 of the Code, opined that :
(SCC p. 378, para 3)

3. "Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is meant to achieve a
social purpose. The object is to prevent
vagrancy and destitution. It provides a
speedy remedy for the supply of food,
clothing, and shelter to the deserted wife."

9.
A
two-Judge
Bench
in Kirtikant
D.
Vadodaria v. State
of
Gujarat [(1996) 4 SCC 479 : 1996 SCC
(Cri)
762],
while
adverting
to
the
dominant purpose behind Section 125 of
the Code, ruled that : (SCC p. 489, para
15)

15. "... While dealing with the
ambit
and
scope
of
the
provision
contained in Section 125 of the Code, it
has to be borne in mind that the dominant
and primary object is to give social justice
to the woman, child and infirm parents,
etc. and to prevent destitution and
vagrancy by compelling those who can
support those who are unable to support
themselves but have a moral claim for
948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
support. The provisions in Section 125
provide a speedy remedy to those women,
children and destitute parents who are in
distress. The provisions in Section 125 are
intended to achieve this special purpose.
The
dominant
purpose
behind
the
benevolent
provisions
contained
in
Section 125 clearly is that the wife, child
and parents should not be left in a
helpless state of distress, destitution and
starvation."

10.
In Chaturbhuj v. Sita
Bai [(2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356],
reiterating the legal position the Court
held : (SCC p. 320, para 6)

6. "... Section 125 CrPC is a
measure of social justice and is specially
enacted to protect women and children
and as noted by this Court inCapt.
Ramesh
Chander
Kaushal v. Veena
Kaushal [(1978) 4 SCC 70 : 1978 SCC
(Cri) 508] falls within constitutional sweep
of Article 15(3) reinforced by Article 39 of
the Constitution of India. It is meant to
achieve a social purpose. The object is to
prevent vagrancy and destitution. It
provides a speedy remedy for the supply of
food, clothing and shelter to the deserted
wife. It gives effect to fundamental rights
and natural duties of a man to maintain
his wife, children and parents when they
are unable to maintain themselves. The
aforesaid
position
was
highlighted
in Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of
Gujarat [(2005) 3 SCC 636 : 2005 SCC
(Cri) 787]."

11.
Recently
in Nagendrappa
Natikar v. Neelamma [(2014)
14
SCC
452 : (2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 407 : (2015) 1
SCC (Civ) 346], it has been stated that it is
a piece of social legislation which provides
for a summary and speedy relief by way of
maintenance to a wife who is unable to
maintain herself and her children".

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rajathi Vs. C. Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC
326 has held that the words "unable to
maintain herself" would mean the means
available to the deserted wife while she was
living with her husband and would not take
within itself the efforts made by the wife
after the desertion to survive somehow.
Section 125 was enacted on the premise
that it is the obligation of the husband to
maintain his wife, children and parents. It
will, therefore, be for him to show that he
has no fresh means to discharge his
obligation and he did not neglect or refuse
to maintain them or anyone of them. The
statement of the wife that she was unable to
maintain herself would be enough and it
would be for the husband to prove
otherwise.

15. 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."

16. In the case of Chander Parkash
Bodh Raj vs. Shila Rani Chander
Prakash: 1968 SCC Online Del 52, the
Delhi High Court has held that :
4 All. Smt. Maya Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
949

"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."

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

18. 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, is not able to earn enough to
discharge
his
legal
obligation
of
maintaining his wife as well as his
daughters. Therefore, it can be concluded
that from the earnings of opposite party no.
2 from doing manual labour, he is earning
enough to provide maintenance to his wife
and daughters.

19. As from perusal of the evidence of
revisionist and opposite party no. 2
regarding the income of the parties, it
transpires that whereas the revisionist,
P.W.1 Smt. Maya Devi and P.W.2 Kiran
have deposed that opposite party no.2,
Sunil @ Balendra is engaged in the
profession of contractor. He has 15-16
bighas of agricultural land and two houses.
They have also deposed that the revisionist
has no source of any income and is not
earning any money by teaching tuitions or
stitching and embroidery. D.W.1 Sunil @
Balendra and D.W.2 have deposed that
opposite party no. 2 has no agricultural
land in his name but his father has four
bighas of agricultural land from which they
earn Rs.60,000/- per annum and on which
three persons are dependant. They have
also deposed that opposite party no. 2 is not
a contractor but he works as a labourer. No
documentary evidence has been filed by
either party on the issue of earning of
revisionist or opposite party no. 2.

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
Rs.12,000/- to 14,000/- per month from his
wages.
Apart
from
this,
admittedly
revisionist along with two other family
members, ultimately earns Rs.60,000/- per
annum from their agricultural land which is
to be divided between three sharers. Thus,
the
income
of
the
revisionist
from
agricultural land is about Rs.20,000/- per
annum.

21. Therefore, it can be concluded
that from manual labour as well as earning
from agricultural land, the total income of
opposite party no. 2 is Rs.15,000/- per
month.

22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari,
(1970) 3 SCC 129 has held that 25% of the
husband's net salary would be just and proper
to be awarded as maintenance allowance to
the wife. The amount of permanent alimony
awarded to the wife must be befitting the
status of the parties and the capacity of the
spouse to pay maintenance.

23. In Kalyan Dey Chaudhary Vs.
Rita Dey Chaudhary Nee Nandy, (2017)
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