HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. – 41
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 1097 of 2000
Revisionist :- Daya Chand And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- I.K. Chaturvedi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Sri I.K. Chaturvedi learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Gopal Sahai Srivastava learned Advocate for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. No one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2.
At the outset, learned Senior Advocate for the revisionists states that the opposite party no. 2 had filed a divorce petition, wherein she had been granted an ex-parte decree of divorce vide judgment and order dated 18.3.2000. She had remarried and got a Government job. The entire matrimonial family had been implicated in the alleged incident occurred on 17.10.1995. The accused-revisionists had undergone some period in jail and are pleading mercy for the changed circumstances brought on record.
It is noted that the opposite party no. 2/wife had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights but later on, she had amended the said petition seeking a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.
In the said divorce petition, revisionist no. 1/husband did not appear and hence the ex-parte order was passed on 18.3.2000 believing the version of the wife of cruelty against her. The said decree had not been challenged before a higher Forum.
Moreover, from a perusal of the findings returned by the Court below in the order of conviction, it appears that there were injuries on the person of the opposite party no. 2, the complainant. Noticing the said injuries, the conclusion drawn by the trial court in convicting the revisionists cannot be said to suffer from any error of jurisdiction.
However, further noticed the fact that the revisionists had remained in jail for some period and they had advanced in age during pendency of the present revision for a period of 19 years. Further the opposite party no. 2 has not put in appearance in the present revision. The sentence awarded by the judgment and order dated 19.3.1999 passed by the Ist Judicial Magistrate, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 184 of 1996 (SectionState vs. Daya Chand and others) under Sections 498A, Section323 IPC 3/4 SectionDowry Prohibition Act is modified and reduced to the extent of sentence of imprisonment already undergone and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for each of the revisionist nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in addition to the fine awarded by the trial court, which shall be deposited by them within a period of two months from today.
So far as the revisionist no. 5 is concerned, the sentence awarded by the court below is modified for the period undergone and fine already imposed by the trial court.
The above amount of fine once deposited, shall be paid to the opposite party no. 2/wife by the trial court after giving her due intimation about this order.
In the above terms, the revision is partly allowed.
Certify the judgment to the Court below immediately.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019
Brijesh
