HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 2281 of 2011

Revisionist :- Smt. Rekha Rani

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- K.P. Shukla,Mayank Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

Hon’ble Bharat Bhushan,J.

This rider has been elite by a revisionist for encouragement of upkeep awarded to her by a sequence antiquated 8.3.2011 upheld by Principal Judge, Family Court during Moradabad, in Case No. 221/09 of 2007, underneath Section 125, Cr.P.C., Smt. Rekha Rani v. Dilawar Singh, whereby a upkeep of Rs. 3,000 was awarded to a revisionist from a date of application.

2. Brief contribution giving arise to a benefaction rider are that a matrimony of revisionist was solemnised with conflicting celebration No. 2 Dilawar Singh on 2.2.1998 during Moradabad in suitability with Hindu rites. During march of this marriage, Rs. 51,000 cash, one Hero-Honda motorcycle and several other articles of jewellery, etc. were given to a conflicting celebration No. 2 as dowry. Infact a revisionist has estimated that roughly Rs. 3 lacs were spent in a opening of a pronounced marriage. Subsequent to this matrimony conflicting celebration No. 2, a father of a revisionist and his family members started lifting direct for Rs. 50,000 as additional dowry. She refused to stoop to their pressure. This resulted in her maltreatment. She was regularly subjected to cruelty and harassment. Ultimately her father left a revisionist-wife to her parental home on 12.7.1998 i.e. within 6 months of her marriage. The father of a revisionist, a conflicting celebration No. 2, allegedly threatened a family of revisionist that unless direct of Rs. 50,000 was over he would not take a revisionist-wife behind to her matrimonial home.

3. To cut a matter brief a brawl between a opposition parties could not be resolved notwithstanding a involvement of other chairman including Panchayat. Both a parties instituted Court proceedings.

4. The conflicting celebration No. 2 instituted record underneath Section 9 of a Hindu Marriage Act and a wife-revisionist instituted rapist record underneath Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, IPC and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act. The brawl even came to a High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 36247 of 2010, Smt. Rekha Rani v. State of UP and Others, and this Court destined a Court next to confirm a focus underneath Section 125, Cr.P.C. within 6 months. Pursuant to a instruction of this Court, a Family Court motionless a focus underneath Section 125, Cr.P.C. on 8.3.2011 by awarding a upkeep of Rs. 3,000 per month to a revisionist wife. The mother was not confident with a quantum of award, therefore, she has elite a benefaction rapist rider for encouragement of upkeep awarded to her.

5. This Court listened Mr. K.P. Shukla, schooled Counsel for a revisionist, schooled AGA for a State. Despite sufficient use nothing seemed for a conflicting celebration No. 2-the father Dilawar Singh. Therefore, this Court was compelled to peruse a record with a assistance of schooled AGA and schooled Counsel for a revisionist.

6. Learned Counsel for a revisionist has claimed that a conflicting celebration is a successful Advocate practising in a Civil Courts earning roughly Rs. 30,000 per month. He also owns rural land and thereby earns Rs. 15,000 per month from his farm. Therefore, he can really good means to compensate a upkeep of Rs. 10,000 per month.

7. But it is apparent that no specific justification was constructed by a revisionist in a Family Court for integrity of gain of husband. One paper was constructed indicating that a conflicting celebration father had seemed in one rapist box before a Trial Court. Similarly, Khatauni placed on record does not infer any immeasurable holding that could produce a income of Rs. 15,000 per month from a agriculture. No income taxation papers were furnished by a revisionist. It is loyal that it is really formidable to infer such kind of income generally when one is not profitable a income tax. It is also loyal that some arrange of theory work has to be finished by a Courts to establish a final endowment though no tough and quick sequence or mathematical regulation can be developed for integrity of income of any chairman quite if a income can't be documented. Yet it is obligatory on a celebration claiming upkeep to infer a income of a conflicting celebration with reasonable pointing unwell that it would not be probable for a Courts to endowment extreme maintenance.

8. The conflicting celebration is pronounced to be practising Advocate in District Courts of Bijnor. It would be really formidable to suppose that he is earning estimable volume in deficiency of any reasonable justification and documentation. One can't destroy to notice that, even according to a explain of revisionist, small disaster to do a direct of Rs. 50,000 resulted in matrimonial discord, if a conflicting celebration had been earning roughly Rs. 50,000 per month afterwards usually he would not have demanded additional dowry of Rs. 50,000 only.

9. A dowry seeker would usually direct some-more income to enlarge his financial health. In any case, it would not be scold for this Court to assume per income of conflicting party. Suffice is to contend that a revisionist unsuccessful to give any justification to support a explain that her father was earning roughly Rs. 50,000 per month solely a bald statements of meddlesome witnesses.

10. In a opinion of this Court explain of revisionist can't be supposed on a belligerent that there is small range underneath a revisional office to dissapoint a anticipating of a contribution generally when there is no illegality, impropriety and perversity in a conclusions of a Court below. Hon’ble Apex Court in Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi v. Pyla Suri Demudu and Another, reported in III (2011) DMC 795 (SC)=VIII (2011) SLT 557=IV (2011) CCR 315 (SC)=2011 (3) ACR 3538 (SC), has hold as under:

“……..it is well-settled that a revisional Court can meddle usually if there is any illegality in a sequence or there is any element anomaly in a procession or there is an blunder of jurisdiction. The High Court underneath a revisional office is not compulsory to enter into re-appreciation of justification available in a sequence extenuation maintenance; during a many it could scold a obvious blunder of jurisdiction. It has been laid down in a array of decisions including Suresh Mondal v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2006 Jhar. R 153, that in a box where a schooled Magistrate has postulated upkeep holding that a mother had been neglected and a mother was entitled to maintenance, a range of division by a revisional Court is really limited. The Revisional Court would not surrogate a possess anticipating and dissapoint a upkeep sequence available by a Magistrate.

In rider opposite a upkeep sequence upheld in record underneath Section 125, Cr.P.C, a Revisional Court has no energy to re-assess justification and surrogate a possess findings.”

11. we have delicately examined a visualisation of a Family Court. The visualisation of Family Court does not humour from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error.

12. This rapist revision, therefore, miss merits and is hereby dismissed.

Office is destined to surprise a Court next about a sequence within a fortnight.

Criminal Revision dismissed.