SUNDARAM GOSWAMIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4829 of 2024

Sundaram Goswami
                                                               .....Revisionist(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                    .....Opposite
                                                                          Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)    : Girja Shanker Sen, Krishna Dutt Awasthi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Ashutosh Upadhyay, G.A.

Court No. - 88
                     HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

1. Ms. Alka Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Ashutosh
Upadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the
State are present.

2. Present criminal revision under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred by the revisionist against the impugned judgment and order dated
20.07.2024, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Budaun, in
Criminal Misc. Application No.306 of 2020 (Smt. Neelam Vs. Sunderam
Goswami), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Faizganj Behta, District
Budaun, by which the learned trial court has allowed the application of the
opposite party no.2/wife, filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the
revisionist/husband to pay Rs.10,000 to the opposite party no.2 from the date
of filing application, under section 125 Cr.P.C. i.e. 24.02.2020.

3. Learned Counsel of the revisionist submits that the marriage between the
revisionist and opposite party no.2 was solemnized on 15.02.2015 in
accordance with the Hindu Rites and Rituals. The parents of the opposite
party no.2 did not give any dowry in the marriage, rather the revisionist's
family members gifted jewellery of worth Rs.2 lacs and clothes, sarees etc.
of worth Rs.1 lacs. Opposite party no.2 never respected the revisionist's
parents and other family members and refused to cook food for the
revisionist's family and insisted the revisionist to live separately. Thereafter,
                                                           CRLR No. 4829 of 2024
                                 2


the revisionist kept the opposite party no.2 in a separate house away from his
family to avoid quarrels, where also she did not do any household work and
did not cook food and when the revisionist complained to her parents and
brothers they took her side and said that she is short tempered since
childhood. Subsequently, with the consent of the father of Opposite Party
No. 2, she was taken to a psychiatrist for evaluation; however, no
improvement was observed in her behaviour.

4. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that being aggrieved
with the behaviour of opposite party no.2/wife the revisionist filed a suit
under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the learned Family
Court, for settling the dispute with his wife. Thereafter, due to daily
quarreling between the husband and wife, the parents of the revisionist
evicted the revisionist from all their movable and immovable property and
published a news item in the daily newspapers in this regard.

5. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contends that after the marriage dated
22.03.2015, Opposite Party No. 2 went to her parental home, taking with her
all her jewellery, clothes, and other personal belongings from the
revisionist's house, and the same continue to remain in her possession. It is
further submitted that when the father of the revisionist raised complaints
regarding the conduct of Opposite Party No. 2 before her relatives, they
requested that she be given another opportunity by way of compromise;
however, no improvement was observed in her behaviour. Thereafter,
Opposite Party No. 2 allegedly began maintaining continuous contact with
one of her boyfriends. When the revisionist objected to the same, Opposite
Party No. 2 threatened that, in case of further interference, she would initiate
legal proceedings against him and his family members. It is further
submitted that on 11.12.2019, in the absence of the revisionist, the parents
and brother of Opposite Party No. 2 came to the revisionist's house and, in a
pre-planned manner, packed all goods, jewellery, and clothes, and also
called the police. The police summoned the revisionist to the police station,
whereupon he appeared, and thereafter Opposite Party No. 2 left for her
                                                          CRLR No. 4829 of 2024
                                 3


parental home along with all the packed belongings. The revisionist lodged a
First Information Report regarding the said incident at Police Station Aonla,
which was registered as Case Crime No.127 of 2020 under Sections 452,
504, and 506 of the IPC against Opposite Party No. 2. After investigation,
the police submitted a charge-sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate-I,
Aonla, wherein the accused persons are currently on bail. Opposite Party No.
2, however, made counter-allegations stating that the revisionist assaulted
her at around 10:00 PM, poured kerosene upon her, and attempted to set her
on fire with intent to kill. In this regard, Opposite Party No.2 also lodged an
FIR dated 11.12.2019, which was registered as Case Crime No.04 of 2020
under Sections 498-A, 323, and 506 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act against the revisionist, but no action was taken by the police.
Thereafter, Opposite Party No.2 filed another complaint, being Complaint
Case No. 463 of 2019 (Neelam vs. Sundaram Goswami), under Sections
323, 504, 506, and 498-A of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act at Police Station Bisauli, District Budaun, alleging therein
that on 11.12.2019, the revisionist and his family members, in collusion,
assaulted her and attempted to set her on fire with the intention to kill her,
and that upon her raising alarm, local persons arrived and saved her.

6. Learned counsel for the revisionist additionally submits that the family of
opposite party no.2 misguided her, due to which she filed an application u/s
125 Cr.P.C. on 24.02.2020 before the Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Budaun, against the revisionist. The revisionist filed his objection in
the said application under section 125 Cr.P.C. stating that the opposite party
no.2 is an educated and skilled woman and earns Rs.800-900/- per day by
done sewing, embroidery and zari work. Thereafter, ignoring the objection
of the revisionist the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court
passed the impugned order dated 20.07.2024, allowing the application under
section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the opposite party no.2, directing the
revisionist to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 from the
date of application i.e. 20.02.2020.
                                                          CRLR No. 4829 of 2024
                                4


7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned
AGA for the State have vehemently opposed the aforesaid arguments and
submitted that the opposite party no.2 got married with the revisionist on
15.02.2015 as per Hindu rites and rituals and in the said marriage her father
spent about Rs.4,50,000/-. She went to her in-laws house after marriage, but
the in-laws of opposite party no.2 were not happy with dowry and demanded
additional dowry of Rs.2 lakhs and one Bolero Motor Cycle, and when the
inability was shown by the opposite party no.2 to fulfill the demand, they
started beating her, ill treating her with cruelty and on 11.12.2019, opposite
party no.2 and his family members tried to kill her by pouring kerosene oil.
Upon hearing the noise of opposite party no.2 the people of the locality came
and save her. Thereafter, she called her father and went to police station and
lodged the FIR of the said incident, but no action was taken by the police
and she was sent back with her father. Since then, the opposite party no. 2 is
residing at her parental home. The opposite party no.2 claims that she is
illiterate and only knows how to sign. She is a housewife and lacks any
knowledge of sewing or embroidery. The revisionist has not inquired about
her well-being or provided any maintenance. The revisionist runs school
vehicles, deals in building materials, and earns 1.5 lakh rupees per month
from his land in Urla village. Therefore, the revisionist has sufficient source
of income to provide the maintenance amount as awarded by the learned
family court, hence no interference is required by this Court.

8. Perusal of record shows that the learned trial court vide impugned order
dated 20.07.2024 allowed the application of the opposite party no.2/wife,
filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking the maintenance primarily on the
ground that the opposite party no.2/wife is living separately from the
revisionist on sufficient and reasonable grounds of mental and physical
abuse for additional dowry demand. The revisionist claimed that the
opposite party no.2/wife is capable of supporting herself but could not
provide any concrete documentary evidence for the same. The revisionist
neither inquired about the well being of the opposite party no.2/wife nor
                                                                                               CRLR No. 4829 of 2024
                                                                     5


                                    provided any financial assistance deliberately. It is noteworthy that the
                                    revisionist had described the opposite party no.2 as mentally ill and if the
                                    statement of the revisionist is taken into consideration, the natural
                                    conclusion is that due to her mental illness, she would not be capable of
                                    performing any work as expected of a healthy person. The learned trial court
                                    relied on the findings of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court given in
                                    Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 wherein it was concluded that the
                                    maintenance shall be payable in all suits from the date of filing of the claim.
                                    In compliance with the above binding legal order of the Hon'ble Supreme
                                    Court, the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month was directed to be
                                    payable in the suit from the date of filling of the application, i.e. 24-02-2020
                                    by the revisionist/husband to the opposite party no.2/wife. The learned trial
                                    court impugned order is very well reasoned and justified, therefore, warrants
                                    no interference by this Court.

                                    9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned judgment and order
                                    dated 20.07.2024, passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
                                    Budaun, in Criminal Misc. Application No.306 of 2020 (Smt. Neelam Vs.
                                    Sunderam Goswami), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Faizganj
                                    Behta, District Budaun, needs no interference by this Court and the present
                                    revision is liable to be dismissed.

                                    10. Accordingly, the present revision under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. is
                                    hereby dismissed.
                                    May 5, 2026
                                    VKG
                                                                                               (Achal Sachdev,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad