—

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Rubi Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 February, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:30706

AFR

Court No. – 83

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 920 of 2023

Revisionist :- Smt. Rubi Singh

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Jitendra Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ram Shiromani Yadav

with

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. – 1328 of 2023

Revisionist :- Rajeev Kumar Singh

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Ravindra Sharma,Ram Shiromani Yadav

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Jitendra Singh

Hon’ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

1. Heard Sri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. Since both these criminal revisions arise from the same impugned order passed in Maintenance (Old) Case No. 304 of 2018 (Smt. Rubi Singh Vs. Rajeev Kumar Singh) and relate to the same facts and law, therefore they are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.

3. By means of these criminal revisions, the revisionists have challenged to the quantum of maintenance granted in impugned judgment and order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Maintenance (Old) Case No. 304 of 2018 (Smt. Rubi Singh Vs. Rajeev Kumar Singh).

4. From perusal of the pleadings as well as admitted facts between the parties, it transpires is that the revisionist, Smt. Rubi Singh, was married to opposite party no. 2, Rajeev Kumar Singh, on 17.06.2009 according to Hindu rites and customs. After marriage, the revisionist went to matrimonial home and performed all the duties as a wife. In her matrimonial home, her father and in-laws harassed and tortured her for bringing her additional dowry of 5,00,000/- rupees for which her parents were not ready as they have already spent enough money in her marriage according to their status. The opposite party no. 2 and his family members used to beat her and keep her hungry. From the above marriage, the revisionist gave birth to a daughter namely Pari 2 Dhanushree in the year 2011. In the year 2012, the revisionist met an accident due to which she could not walk properly. After accident, the behavior of opposite party no. 2 and her family members became started harassing her to a greater extent.

5. The opposite party no. 2 filed a petition for divorce being Divorce Petition No. 533 of 2015 (Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs. Rubi Singh) in the Family Court, Amroha and the proceeding continued exparte and the same was dismissed by the trial court. Against which, the opposite party no. 2 has filed an appeal before this Court, which is still pending. The opposite party no.2 is working as a teacher in Junior High School and earning 50,000/- per month as salary. In this regard, the revisionist has filed salary slip of opposite party no. 2 for the month of November, 2022, which is annexed as Annexure 3 to the criminal revision. According to which, after deduction, the opposite party no. 2 draws Rs. 81609/- per month as salary. The revisionist is staying in her parental home since 17.12.2014 and the opposite party no. 2 has not provided her any maintenance allowance since then. The averment has been made in the written statement by the opposite party no. 2 that no demand for dowry was made. The opposite party no. 2 or his family members did not harass and torture her for dowry and the revisionist voluntarily left her matrimonial house and is staying at her parental home and she is not ready to come back to her matrimonial home.

6. In this criminal revision and connected criminal revision, both parties have confined their challenge to the quantum of maintenance granted by the trial court and they have not pressed other issues framed by the trial court. The trial court has concluded its decision in the impugned judgment and order that due to harassment made by the opposite party no.2 which was further increased after her suffering accident and being not able to walk properly and due to the divorce proceedings filed by opposite party no. 2 against the revisionist, the revisionist was justified to stay separately from opposite party no. 2 at her parental home.

7. The revisionist, Smt. Rubi Singh, has filed salary slip of opposite party no. 2 for the month of November, 2022, which is annexed as Annexure 3 to the criminal revision petition. According to which, his net salary after deduction is Rs. 81609 per month. The averment has also been made in the affidavit that the father of the opposite party no. 2 has 40 bigha agricultural land and they earn about 8 to 10 lacs from it but the revisionist has not filed any khasra khatauni of the alleged agricultural land.

8. Per contra, opposite party no. 2 has submitted that he has responsibility to look after his old father. Against the same, the revisionist has filed counter affidavit that the father of opposite party no. 2 stays with his others sons at different place Didoli and he is not dependent on opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2 has not filed any rebuttal to the same.

9. Admittedly, the revisionist is a Graduate with English subject but she has denied that she earns Rs. 20,000/- or any amount from running coaching classes. The opposite party no. 2 has not filed any oral and documentary evidence against it. Apart from that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajathi Vs. C.Ganesan, (1999) 6 SCC 326 has held that there is difference between capacity to earn and actual income by a party on the ground that a person is highly qualified, no conclusion can be drawn that she is earning money by utilizing her educational qualification. Considering the evidence on record, the trial court has directed the opposite party no. 2 to pay maintenance allowance Rs. 10,000/- to the revisionist, which is not sufficient. The documents submitted in the trial court, the monthly salary of the opposite party no. 2 was shown as Rs. 50,000/-. The Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another, 2021 (2) SCC 324 has held that while disposing of the criminal revision, the Court may ascertain maintenance allowance on the basis of recent income of the parties. From the oral and documentary evidence available on record as well as the affidavit filed by revisionist in support of the revision petition, it can be concluded that the opposite party no. 2 is drawing net Rs.81609 per month as salary and he has no other liability on him. Considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in Dr. Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Smt. Raj Kumari and another (1970) 3 SCC 129, the revisionist can be granted 25% of the net salary of the opposite party no. 2.

10. This criminal revision is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 17.12.2022 passed by the trial court is modified to the extent that the opposite party no. 2 shall pay Rs. 20,000/- to the revisionist as monthly maintenance allowance till 10th of each month from the date of filing of application under Section 125 CrPC. The arrear of maintenance allowance shall be paid in four equal instalments within a period of six months.

11. From the above discussion, I am of the view that there is no ground to allow the Criminal Revision No. 1328 of 2023. The Criminal Revision No. 1328 of 2023 is dismissed accordingly. Copy of judgment and order be placed on the file of Criminal Revision No. 1328 of 2023 (Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another).

12. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court for compliance.

Order Date :- 22.2.2024

Pratima