SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Unknown vs Sharafat Under Section 125 Of The on 22 November, 2019

CRLR No. 263 of 2012
Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

List revised. None appears for the
revisionist. Mr. P.S. Bohra, A.G.A. is present
for the State.

In such an eventuality, since the present
case being a Criminal Revision, this Court has
got no other option except to decide the
Revision itself on its merit.

This Revision arises out of the
judgment dated 8th November, 2012, as
passed by the Judge Family Court, Haridwar
in Misc. Case No. 97 of 2007, Smt. Vahidan
Vs. Sharafat under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C., by virtue of which, the Family Court
has determined the maintenance payable to
respondent No.2 to the tune of Rs.1,000/- p.m.
The revisionist has challenged the said
order on various grounds narrated therein but
after giving a thoughtful consideration to the
findings recorded in the impugned judgment,
which is in relation to and based on the fact
that as far as the matrimony between the
revisionist and respondent No.2, which was
said to have been solemnized about twenty
two years back, prior to the institution of the
application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
in accordance with the muslim rites and
rituals, it is an admitted fact between the
parties. She has further stated that on account
of the atrocities, which has been exercised by
the revisionist and his family members, she
was maltreated by the members of the family
and, ultimately, the atrocities, it has reached
to such an extent that in the morning of 1st
June, 2007, she was even thrown out of the
house without any cause and with bare cloth,
which she was putting on.

It is her case that on 7th June, 2007,
when the revisionist/husband along with other
persons had visited his in-laws home, even
there too he has misbehaved, they have
further abused the sister and other family
members of the house of respondent No.2 and
misbehaved with them, without making any
effort to retrieve back the wife in order to
discharge his matrimonial obligations.

In support of her contention for the
determination of the maintenance, she has
contended that the revisionist husband has got
a professional engagement as being a
Contractor and is also simultaneously engaged
in the business of diary and he is having an
income of Rs.15,000/- p.m. Consequently,
she has prayed for that the maintenance may
be determined to be payable to her @
Rs.5,000/- p.m.
The revisionist has put in appearance in
the proceedings under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. and has filed his objection by way of
paper No. 42, and has denied the allegation
pertaining to the desertion and mal treatment,
as it has been pleaded in the application.

The respondent/wife in support of her
testimony has recorded her evidence as PW1.
Apart from that, she has also placed on record
the documentary evidence to show the income
which was accruing to the revisionist and also
to show that he was the residence of the said
place and also that the mal treatment, which
was committed by the revisionist and his
family members was also a subject matter of
the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 6 of 2012,
Vaheedan Vs. Sharafat and others, which was
initiated by respondent No.2 by invoking
Sections 18, Section19, Section20, Section22 and Section23 of the
Protection of Women from SectionDomestic
Violence Act.

The learned Family Court, after
considering the rival pleadings and evidence
on record has determined the maintenance
payable @ Rs.1,000/- p.m. and this Court is of
the view that considering the reasoning
assigned in the impugned order, particularly,
establishment of the fact that she was a
married wife of the revisionist, as would be
apparent from the document on record, i.e.
family register and other documents to show
that she was recorded as family members of
the revisionist, this Court is of the view that
the amount of maintenance of Rs.1,000/- p.m.,
as determined by the Court below is
absolutely just and proper, which does not call
for any interference in the exercise of
revisional power under Section 397 of the

Consequently, the Revision lacks merit
and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 22.11.2019

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2022 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation