In Chamber Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 397 of 2003 Petitioner :- Indra Jeet Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- B. Narayan Singh,H.N. Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Kashi Nath Pandey,J.
This revision has been filed against the judgement
and order dated 9.12.02, passed by Sri Mahendra
Nath Judicial Magistrate Ist District Bhadohi in case
no. 62 of 2001Smt. Pramila Devi Vs. Indrajeet Singh.
By the impugned order the learned Magistrate
allowed the application under section 125 Cr.P.C.
and awarded the maintenance to Smt. Pramila Devi,
opposite party no. 2 and her minor child at the rate of
Rs. 400/- and Rs. 300/- per month respectively for
their maintenance from the date of the judgement
dated 9.12.02. The amount of maintenance to the
daughter Jaya is to be paid till her marriage.
I have heard Sri Sharad Chandra Upadhyay, holding
the brief of Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel for the
revisionist at the stage of admission and have gone
through the grounds of revision.
The impugned order has been challenged only on the
ground of facts. It has not been challenged on
account of any error of procedure or substantive law.
Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the
learned lower court did not consider the ground of the
revisionist on the point of fact that without any proper
reason the opposite party no. 2 is living separately
whereas the revisionist is ready to maintain her with
her minor daughter. There is no substantive evidence
in support of the allegations of the opposite party
no.2 that she was thrown out of the house of the
revisionist. There is no any evidence on the point of
demand of dowry. They have one son Aditya and
daughter Jaya. The son is living with him whereas
without any proper reason opposite party no. 2 is
living separately with her daughter in her father’s
house since long. On the point of income of the
revisionist there is no evidence. He is doing business
of tea shop earning a little amount. For his own
maintenance he is dependent upon his father.
The revisionist has filed a divorce petition under
section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in which
opposite party no. 2 appeared before the court below
and filed her written statement, as such in reaction
she has filed the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C.
under Sub Sectioin 4 of the Section 125 Cr.P.C. She
is not entitled for any maintenance as without any
sufficient reason she refused to live with her
husband/revisionist inspite of best efforts made by
the revisionist for keeping her with him. The court
below did not consider the statement of the
witnesses adduced by the revisionist on the point of
income. The revisionist is ready to maintain his
wife/opposite party no. 2 with her daughter Jaya.
The court while exercising the revisional power will
not go into the merits of the fact concluded by the
learned trial court. The revisional court can interfere
on the point of fact only on the ground of perversity, if
the conclusion drawn by the learned lower court is
against the evidence on record, only then on the
point of fact the court of revision can interfere. At the
time of argument learned counsel does not challenge
the proceedings on any error of procedure. There is
no any error of substantive law. The only ground left
for consideration is the interference on account of
perversity of judgement in none of the grounds of
revision. It has been alleged that the conclusion
drawn by the learned lower court is against the
evidence on record. There is nothing to hold that the
conclusion on the point of fact can be said to be
perverse. I have gone through the impugned
judgment and order. The marriage of the revisionist
with opposite party no. 2 is admitted. It is also
admitted that the minor daughter Jaya is their
daughter.
According to the petition filed under section 125
Cr.P.C. the revisionist and members of his family
were not satisfied on account of the non fulfilment of
dowry demand. They were demanding colour TV,
scooter, fridge and Rs. 10,000/- as cash from her
parents. They felt ill when she expressed their
inability to fulfil the demand of dowry. In the result
they subjected her to mental and physical torture.
They had also snatched her stridhan i.e. clothes,
jewellery, Rs. 20,000/- cash. They became more and
more aggressive doing inhuman treatment towards
her. They used to beat her and threatened to remarry
the revisionist. She was turned out with her daughter
Jaya and compelled her to come to her parents
house.
She has no source of income to maintain herself and
her daughter. The revisionist has proper source of
income of about Rs. 20,000/- per month or more.
Accordingly she demanded Rs. 5000/- for herself and
for her daughter from her husband.
All the above allegations have been denied by the
revisionist/husband stating that he belongs to
backward class, educated up to 4th standard and
belongs to a poor family. No demand of dowry. He is
maintaining his son who is living with him. He is also
ready to maintain his daughter and wife. She is
habitual of luxurious life that is why she is not living
with him. She is under undue influence of her Behnoi,
that is why she used to ignore her husband. He went
to her parents house for taking her but he was
abused by her parents and threatened to remarry
her. He was ill treated by her in presence of her
Behnoi, therefore, he has filed a suit for divorce in the
Family Court at Allahabad.
It is the discretion of the trial court to believe or
disbelieve the version adduced by the parties. It is
not the subject of the revisional court to substitute its
own finding in the finding of the trial court, if there is
evidence adduced by the applicant which has been
believed by the learned trial court then it is beyond
the scope of the revisional court to interfere with the
finding of the trial court.
The petitioner has examined herself as PW1 and in
support of her allegation PW2 Gulab Shankar, P.W..3
Rati Lal have been examined. In rebuttal in support
of the objection filed by the revisionist he himself has
been examined as DW1 and in his support Pankaj as
DW2 and Jamuna Das as DW3 have been
examined. She has specifically stated that she had
gone to her husband’s house and performed her duty
as his wife, but they were demanding colour TV,
golden chain, Rs. 10,000/- in cash and on her failure
of fulfilment of the demand of dowry they ill treated
her, began to beat her from time to time, snatched
her clothes and jewelleries and cash. They did not
provide her proper food, threatened her for second
marriage of the revisionist. She was thrown out of her
husband’s house with her daughter and that is why
she was compelled to live with her father.
P.W.2 Gulab Shankar her uncle and PW3 Rati Lal
her father have supported the above version which
has been believed by learned trial court reaching to
the conclusion that there was sufficient cause for her
living separately from her husband. Learned lower
court believed that her husband is not maintaining
her and her daughter. The above evidence adduced
by the husband was disbelieved by the learned trial
court. Learned trial court disbelieved that he is ready
to maintain his wife and daughter. According to his
own version he himself has filed a suit for divorce
making allegations against chastity of the lady with
her Behnoi about her illicit relations, is also a type of
torture, although her Behnoi visited his house only
once and did not stay there even a single night. He
does not know the residence of her Behnoi. Thus the
allegations of illicit relations have not been believed
by the court below. Learned trial court did not believe
DW2 who has stated that on the request of Indrajeet
he is adducing evidence. He has stated the fact as
has been told by Indrajeet. He is not related with the
family of Indrajeet. He had formal introduction with
Indrajeet at the betel shop. DW2 has got no personal
knowledge regarding the family affairs of Indrajeet.
DW2 has been treated to be a chance witness. Thus
the court below disbelieved the allegations of illicit
relations of his wife with her Behnoi on the point of
torture. Learned court below believed the petitioner’s
version. She has also been believed on the point of
demand of dowry as well as mental and physical
torture. Learned trial court reached to the conclusion
that even on the ground of assault on the character
of his wife is a sufficient ground for her separate
living, it amounts to mental torture. Learned lower
court has referred ACC 1998 page 887 in support of
the above conclusion. On the point of source of
income the learned court below found that the
revisionist is able to pay the maintenance amount of
Rs. 700/- per month, which is a petty amount, which
can be given by the revisionist for maintenance of his
wife and daughter, whereas the petitioner is not able
to maintain herself as well as her daughter. The court
below did not believe DW3 on the point of her doing
the business of tea shop. Learned trial court treated
DW3 as a chance witness, who cannot be believed.
Thus the judgement passed by the trial court is
based on evidence on record, which can not be said
to be perverse from any corner.
Considering the above facts the revision is liable to
be dismissed at the stage of admission.
The revision is dismissed. Impugned judgment and
order dated 9.12.2002, in Maintenance Case No. 62
of 2002, Pramila Devi Vs. Indrajeet Singh is
confirmed.
Order Date :- 20.7.2010
KCS