SACHINversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1707 of 2024

Sachin
                                                           .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)          :   Abhishe Pandey, Praveen Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)       :   G.A., Madhava Nand Shukla

Court No. - 86
                 HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

1. This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the
impugned judgement and order dated 11.01.2024 passed by Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court No.02, Muzaffarnagar in Case No. 528 of
2019 (Smt. Kavita Vs. Sachin), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station
Charthawal, District Muzaffarnagar whereby the learned trial Court has
allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the
revisionist to pay Rs. 4,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 (wife)
towards her maintenance from the date of application i.e. 23.07.2019.

2. As per the averments made in the maintenance petition, the marriage
between the revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on
07.02.2010 as per Hindu rituals and customs. Soon after the marriage,
husband (revisionist) of the opposite party no.2 and his other family
members started demanding additional dowry of Rs. 2,51,000/- and one car.
They threatened her that if she does not bring Rs. 2,51,000/- and one car,
they would torture her. She was harassed mentally and physically by them.
From the beginning just after the marriage, her father-in-law used to behave
vulgarly with her. When opposite party no.2 narrated the aforesaid facts to
her family members, father of the opposite party no.2 has given Rs. 1 lakh to
her in-laws and stated that he was not in a position to pay the remaining
amount as well as car as demanded by her in-laws. When opposite party no.2
became pregnant in the year, 2011, they threatened her that until her parents
do not fulfill the aforesaid demand of dowry, they would not allow her to be
a mother and they attempted to kill the baby conceived by her. When the
condition of opposite party no.2 became serious, her family members
reached her in-laws' house, and took her to hospital at Muzaffarnagar and
from where, she was referred to Meerut. Her treatment was carried out in
                                                         CRLR No. 1707 of 2024
                                2

Jyoti Nursing Home at Meerut, the baby conceived by her died due to
physical assault caused by her in-laws. Opposite party no.2 again became
pregnant in year, 2015 but they again assaulted her. Thereafter, she was
brought to Tyagi Nursing Home at Muzaffarnagar by her brothers, doctor
performed operation on her. On 24.05.2019, they again assaulted and ousted
her. Thereafter, she reached her maika and narrated the whole incident to her
parents.Thereafter, opposite party no.2 went to the police station Charthawal
to lodge F.I.R. against revisionist and his family members but police did not
take any action. On 30.05.2019, a notice was sent to her by the revisionist
(husband) stating therein that he would enter into second marriage, if she
failed to give consent for him to do so within seven days. On 23.06.2019 at
around 6 pm, while she was alone at her maika, revisionist along with his
other family members came to her maika. Revisionist Sachin attempted to
kill her but when she raised alarm, some persons of nearby locality came
there and saved her life. Thereafter, on 24.06.2019, she has given
application to Senior Superintendent of police, Muzaffarnagar by registered
post and the said application is under consideration. Her parents made
request to her in-laws to keep her but they refused. She has no means of
income to maintain herself and now she is dependent on her father. She
stated that revisionist owns 15 to 20 bighas of agricultural land from which
he earns about Rs. 1 lakh per month apart form that he has other sources of
income from which he earns about Rs. 50,000/- Thus, he earns in total about
Rs. 1.5 lakh per month.

3.The revisionist/opponent has presented the objection stating therein that
the story narrated by the opposite party no.2 in the petition is forged and
fabricated whereas the true fact is that when no child was born of their
wedlock, she was taken for medical checkup where it was allegeldy found
that she is not physically fit to conceive. Being hopeless, she requested him
to perform second marriage. Since he is the only son of his family, therefore,
even he was not intending to marry again but on her request he agreed.
Thereafter, opposite party no.2 went to her maika. The revisionist and his
family members made every efforts to know the opinion of her parents in
this respect but no reply was received at their end. Opposite party no.2 has
lodged a false case regarding additional dowry against him and his other
family members including his old parents and one unmarried sister. He
further stated that he does not own any agriculture land, house in his name or
bank balance and he earns his livelihood by working as a labour. Opposite
party no.2 has left his house on her own. She earns about Rs.5,000/- to
7,000/- per month by doing stitching and embroidery work.

4. As an oral evidence, opposite party no.2 has filed her affidavit on oath as
                                                           CRLR No. 1707 of 2024
                                 3

paper Nos. 10 Ka1 to 10 Ka6 and affidavit of witness lalit as Paper Nos.
30Ka/1 to 30 ka/3. opposite party no.2 Kavita (wife) examined herself as
PW1 and Lalit as PW2. A paper No.30 Ka/4 Photographs, Paper Nos. 25
Kha/3 to 25 Kha/6 photocopy of notice, Paper Nos. 25 Kha/7 to 25 Kha/9,
copy of photographs, Paper Nos. 25 Kha/10 Photocopy of Aadhar Card and
Paper Nos. 10 Ka/1 to 10ka/2 photocopy of F.I.R. have been filed as a
documentary evidence.

5. Revisionist Sachin has examined himself as DW1 and Vinod Kumar as
DW2. As a oral evidence, revisionist has filed his affidavit on oath as paper
No. 34 Ka/1 to 34 Ka/4 and affidavit of witness Vinod as paper No. 35Ka/1
to 35 Ka/4. No documentary evidence has been field on behalf of
revisionist.

6.During his cross-examination revisionist has stated that he earns about Rs.
10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. He further stated that the land of 12 bighas
shown by the opposite party no.2, is not in his name but in the name of his
grand-father, who is alive at present. Similarly DW2 Vinod during his cross-
examination stated that revisionist earns Rs. 8,000/- to 10,000/- per month.
However, 12 bighas land is in the name of his father.

7. As per the evidence on record and submissions raised on behalf of the
parties, learned Family Court has passed the impugned order whereby he has
allowed the maintenance to opposite party no.2/wife Kavita @ of Rs.4,000/-
per month from the date of filing the maintenance petition i.e. 23.07.2019.

8. I have heard Sri Praveen Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri
Madhava Nand Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 as well
as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

9. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that impugned order is not
sustainable in the eyes of law and same is liable to be set aside. In support of
his submissions learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that opposite
party no.2/wife is not entitled to get maintenance because she has left the
matrimonial home on her own will whereas revisionist was willing to keep
her. All efforts to bring her in matrimonial home failed on account of her
refusal. He further submitted that even quantum of maintenance is not
sustainable in view of the income of the revisionist/husband.

10. Per contra, learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party
no. 2, defending the impugned order submitted that revisionist has
performed second marriage without getting divorce from the opposite party
no.2. They further stated that opposite party no.2 is living at her parental
house due to physical and mental harassment of the revisionist and his
                                                              CRLR No. 1707 of 2024
                                  4

family members. So far as the averments of revisionist that opposite party
no.2 earns about Rs.5,000/- to 7,000/- per month by doing stitching and
embroidery work is concerned, no documentary evidence has been produced
before the trial court in this regard. There is no illegality or infirmity in the
order impugned and the present criminal revision is liable to be dismissed.

11. From bare perusal of evidence on record, I find that opposite party no.2
is legally wedded wife of the revisionist and her marriage with the
revisionist was solemnized on 07.02.2010 in accordance with Hindu
Customs. Revisionist has also admitted this fact before the trial court,
therefore, the opposite party no.2 is admittedly his legally wedded wife. .

12. In her petition, opposite party no.2/wife has averted that she was
subjected to mental and physical torture and her husband and in-laws
pressurized her to bring Rs. 2,51,000/- and one car as additional dowry from
her parents. She also stated that since she has no individual source of income
therefore, she is unable to maintain herself. She stated that revisionist owns
15 to 20 bigha agricultural land and by which he earns about Rs. 1 lakh per
month. Apart form that he has other source of income from which he earns
about Rs. 50,000/-, thus, his total monthly income is approximately Rs. 1.5
lakh. The other witness namely PW2 Lalit has also supported the PW1
during his examination.

13. DW1 Sachin (revisionist) and DW2 Vinod have supported the version of
counter affidavit. The revisionist has stated that he does not own any
agriculture lands or house in his name nor does have any bank balance
whereas he earns Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- per month for his livelihood by
working as a labour. Opposite party no.2 left the matrimonial house on her
own. She earns about Rs. 5,000/- to 7,000/- per month by doing stitching and
embroidery work. DW2 has also supported the version of DW1 during his
examination before the trial court.

14. Before deciding the case, it would be imperative to refer the relevant
statutory provision.

15. The provision of Section 125 Cr.P.C. provides for maintenance of wives,
children and parents. The Section 125 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-
          "125.Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.- "(1) If
          any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-"
          (a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
          (b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not,
          unable to maintain itself, or
          (c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter)
          who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any
          physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
                                                      CRLR No. 1707 of 2024
                         5

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,
a Magistrate of the First Class may, upon proof of such neglect or
refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the
maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such
monthly rate as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such
person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:
Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female
child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she
attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of
such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient
means:
Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the
proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under
this sub-section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for
the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother,
and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers
reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may
from time to time direct:
Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the
interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second
proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from
the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.
Explanation. For the purposes of this Chapter-
(a) "minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian
Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875); is deemed not to have attained his
majority;
(b) "wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has
obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

(2) Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance
and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the
order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for
maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as
the case may be.
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply
with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the
order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner
provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the
whole or any part of each month's allowance for the maintenance or
the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may
be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until
payment if sooner made:
Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any
amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court
to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on
which it became due : Provided further that if such person offers to
maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses
to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal
stated by her, and may make an order under this section
notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground
for so doing.
Explanation-If a husband has contracted marriage with another
woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be a just ground
for his wife's refusal to live with him.
(4) No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the
                                                              CRLR No. 1707 of 2024
                                  6

         maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as
         the case may be, from her husband under this section if she is living in
         adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with
         her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
         (5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made
         under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient
         reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living
         separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order."

16. In paragraph Nos.37, 38, 39 and 40 of Rajnesh vs. Neha and Another:
(2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
         "37. In Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2
         SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] this
         Court held that the object of maintenance proceedings is not to
         punish a person for his past neglect, but to prevent vagrancy and
         destitution of a deserted wife by providing her food, clothing and
         shelter by a speedy remedy. Section 125 CrPC is a measure of
         social justice especially enacted to protect women and children,
         and falls within the constitutional sweep of Article 15(3),
         reinforced by Article 39 of the Constitution.

         38.Proceedings under Section 125 CrPC are summary in nature.
         In Bhuwan Mohan Singh v.Meena [Bhuwan Mohan Singh v.
         Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 321 : (2015) 4
         SCC (Cri) 200] this Court held that Section 125 CrPC was
         conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of
         a woman who had left her matrimonial home, so that some
         suitable arrangements could be made to enable her to sustain
         herself and the children. Since it is the sacrosanct duty of the
         husband to provide financial support to the wife and minor
         children, the husband was required to earn money even by
         physical labour, if he is able-bodied, and could not avoid his
         obligation, except on any legally permissible ground mentioned
         in the statute.
         39.The issue whether presumption of marriage arises when
         parties are in a live-in relationship for a long period of time,
         which would give rise to a claim under Section 125 CrPC came
         up for consideration in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh
         Kushwaha [Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha,
         (2011) 1 SCC 141 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 53 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri)
         666. This judgment was referred to a larger Bench.] before the
         Supreme Court. It was held that where a man and a woman have
         cohabited for a long period of time, in the absence of legal
         necessities of a valid marriage, such a woman would be entitled
         to maintenance. A man should not be allowed to benefit from
         legal loopholes, by enjoying the advantages of a de facto
         marriage, without undertaking the duties and obligations of such
         marriage. A broad and expansive interpretation must be given to
         the term "wife", to include even those cases where a man and
         woman have been living together as husband and wife for a
         reasonably long period of time. Strict proof of marriage should
         not be a precondition for grant of maintenance under Section 125
         CrPC. The Court relied on the Malimath Committee Report on
         Reforms of Criminal Justice System published in 2003, which
         recommended that evidence regarding a man and woman living
         together for a reasonably long period, should be sufficient to
         draw the presumption of marriage.
         40.The law presumes in favour of marriage, and against
         concubinage, when a man and woman cohabit continuously for a
                                                              CRLR No. 1707 of 2024
                                 7

         number of years. Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict
         proof of marriage is essential, in proceedings under Section 125
         CrPC such strict standard of proof is not necessary. [Kamala v.
         M.R. Mohan Kumar, (2019) 11 SCC 491 : (2019) 4 SCC (Civ)
         732 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 242]."

17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph Nos.77, 78, 79 and 80 of Rajnesh
vs. Neha and Another (supra) has provided for criteria for determining
quantum of maintenance, which reads as under:-
           "77.The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to
           ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or
           vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a
           punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula
           for fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded.
           78.The factors which would weigh with the court inter alia are
           the status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and
           dependent children; whether the applicant is educated and
           professionally qualified; whether the applicant has any
           independent source of income; whether the income is sufficient
           to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was
           accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant
           was employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working
           during the subsistence of the marriage; whether the wife was
           required to sacrifice her employment opportunities for nurturing
           the family, child rearing, and looking after adult members of the
           family; reasonable costs of litigation for a non-working wife.[
           Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun, (1997)
           7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v.Parmvir Parmar,
           (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290]"
           79.In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v.Akanksha
           Jain, (2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court
           held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant
           wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of
           maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on
           the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim
           has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is
           no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated
           and could support herself. The court must take into consideration
           the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for
           her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual
           situations; the court should mould the claim for maintenance
           based on various factors brought before it.
           80.On the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his
           actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance,
           and dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain
           under the law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken
           into consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of
           maintenance to be paid. The court must have due regard to the
           standard of living of the husband, as well as the spiralling
           inflation rates and high costs of living. The plea of the husband
           that he does not possess any source of income ipso facto does
           not absolve him of his moral duty to maintain his wife if he is
           able-bodied and has educational qualifications. [Reema Salkan
           v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC 303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ)
           596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339]"

18. Having heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of learned
counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that smt. Kavita/
                                                                                              CRLR No. 1707 of 2024
                                                                    8

                                    opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of revisionist Sachin. I further
                                    find that revisionist failed to prove that his wife was living at her maika
                                    without any rhyme and reason. On the contrary, materials brought on record
                                    clearly indicates that she was compelled to leave the matrimonial home on
                                    account of physical and mental harassment by her husband and in-laws.
                                    More so, it is an admitted fact that without getting divorce from opposite
                                    party no.2, he performed second marriage. So far as the evidence with regard
                                    to the quantum of maintenance awarded by learned Family Court to
                                    opposite party nos. 2 @ Rs. 4,000/- per month is concerned, it is evident
                                    from the pleadings and evidence on record that opposite party no.2 has no
                                    independent source of income sufficient to maintain herself whereas
                                    revisionist lives in a joint family and 12 bighas land is owned by his
                                    grandfather from which he has sufficient earning. More so, during his cross
                                    he admitted that he earns Rs. 10,000/- to 12000/- per month. Hence,
                                    considering the aforesaid facts, the opposite party no. 2 is entitled for
                                    maintenance from the revisionist.

                                    19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the quantum of
                                    maintenance awarded by the Family Court concerned is not excessive and
                                    there is no perversity in finding of fact or error of law, requiring any
                                    interference in the impugned order, hence the present criminal revision is
                                    liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.

                                    20. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned forthwith for
                                    necessary compliance.

                                    February 25, 2026
                                    AKT
                                                                                     (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad