Allahabad High Court: In a criminal revision against the ex-parte judgment and order passed by the Additional Principal Judge, under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) , wherein the Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.3,000/- per month to her minor son from the date of filing of application dated 17-9-2019, which is payable on 10th of each month, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J. with a view to afford an opportunity to the husband to present his case before the court below and also to ensure the just decision of maintenance case filed under Section 125 CrPC, set aside the impugned judgment and order, subject to the following condition, that the husband will deposit Rs.1,00,000/- as cost before the court below within two months, which will be payable to the wife and will pay Rs.5000/- per month in aggregate as interim maintenance to his wife and her minor son for their sustenance during pendency of said maintenance case, which will be payable on 10-12-2023 and on 10th of each succeeding month.
The applicant/ wife instituted a maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC before the Family Court, seeking maintenance for herself and her minor son with averment that her marriage with the accused was solemnized according to Hindu rites and rituals in Agra. Her parents spent around Rs.10 lakhs in the marriage as gifts and dowry, however, his husband and his family members were not satisfied to this, and they demanded Rs.5 lacs as additional dowry and when their demand could not be fulfilled, they began to harass her and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. She was kicked out from her matrimonial home in 2011. She delivered a child at her parental house.
The Court noted that as the revisionist has not complied with the order of court below regarding payment of maintenance as awarded to the wife and her minor son, she filed an application under Section 125(3) CrPC for issuing recovery warrant for a sum of Rs.2,52,000/-, as arrears of maintenance awarded in ex-parte judgement, which was also issued.
The Court noted that in impugned judgment the mode of service of notice/summon to revisionist in proceeding under Section 125 CrPC was not mentioned, therefore, the claim of the revisionist that he was not aware of the maintenance proceeding as the dispute between the parties was settled through compromise dated 4-3-2016 and no notice of said maintenance case was served upon him, cannot be brushed aside. Thus, with a view to afford an opportunity to the revisionist to present his case before the court below and also, to ensure the just decision of maintenance case filed under Section 125 CrPC, the Court set aside the impugned judgment and order, subject to certain conditions.
[Lalit Singh v State of U.P, 2023 SCC OnLine All 2775, decided on 01-12-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for Revisionist: Advocate Vineet Kumar Sahu, Advocate Abhinav Gaur, Advocate Uma Shankar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party: Government Advocate Prem Chandra Dwivedi
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
