CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (REVN) NO. 89 OF 2018

9th April 2019

Petitioner Counsel: Shri S.O. Ahmed
Respondent Counsel: Shri M.A. Qureshi
Act Name: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

HeadLine : Criminal P.C. (1973), S. 125 – Maintenance – Grant of – Validity – Wife resided with husband for about 15 days after marriage – She leaves company of husband as after marriage she came to know that her husband had first wife – Wife left matrimonial house with reasonable cause – Evidence of husband showing that he is running an optical shop and having sufficient income – Grant of maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from date of application, proper.

Section :
Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Cases Cited :
Paras 4, 13: Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vytas and another .Vs. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and another., (reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri), 376 (SC))
Paras 4, 7: Deb Narayan Halder .Vs. Smt. Anushree Halder., (reported in AIR 2003 SC 3174)
Paras 4, 7: Sow. Sumanbai Ramesh Garje and another .Vs. Ramesh Dagadu Garje., (reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 3710)

JUDGEMENT

PART I

Heard.

2. The present revision is against the judgment dated 08.03.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Amravati in Petition No. E-46/2014, by which the application for maintenance came to be allowed and the husband was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife.

3. Shri Ahmed, learned Counsel for the applicant/husband has submitted that the family Court has granted maintenance from the date of application without recording any reason and, therefore, the order is illegal. He has further submitted that the respondent/ wife has left the matrimonial house without any reasonable cause and, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance.

4. In support of his submission, learned Counsel has relied on the judgments of Apex Court in the cases of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vytas and another .v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and another (reported in 2015 ALL MR (Cri), 376 (SC)) and Deb Narayan Halder .v. Smt. Anushree Halder (reported in AIR 2003 SC 3174) and the judgment of this Court in the case of Sow. Sumanbai Ramesh Garje and another .v. Ramesh Dagadu Garje (reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 3710).

5. Learned Counsel has pointed out the evidence and submitted that the wife was well aware about the first marriage of her husband. Therefore, there was one agreement between them. That agreement is at Exh.27 which shows that she was well aware about the first marriage of her husband. She left the house of her husband without any reason and, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance.

6. Shri Ahmed, learned Counsel for the applicant/husband has submitted that the applicant/husband has taken every care of respondent/wife. She was taken to the Ophthalmologist, but she has made allegation that she was being treated as maid servant. All her evidences are nothing but false. Learned family Court has not recorded its findings properly and, therefore, he has prayed to allow the revision.

7. Shri Qureshi, learned Counsel for the respondent/wife has submitted that the respondent/wife was not knowing that her husband was already married. When she came to reside with her husband, she came to know that her husband was already married and, therefore, she left the house of her husband. There is sufficient cause for leaving the house of her husband and, therefore, it cannot be said that without any reason she left the company of her husband. Cited decisions in the cases of Sumanbai Ramesh Garje and another .v. Ramesh Dagadu Garje and Deb Narayan Halder .v. Smt. Anushree Halder are on different footings. Hence, the same are not applicable to the case in hand.

8. Learned Counsel has submitted that as a normal rule, the application for maintenance is to be granted from the date of application itself. Whenever the Court wants to grant maintenance from the date of order, then the Court has to record its reasons.

9. There is no dispute about the marriage between the parties. There is also no dispute that the wife had left the company of her husband within 15 days from the date of marriage. There is no dispute that the husband had already married and having his first wife with him. Agreement was executed before performance of marriage. That agreement is dated 18th May, 2013 and the marriage was performed on 30th May, 2013. Shri Ahmed, learned Counsel for the applicant/husband has pointed out the written agreement. One line is added in the agreement itself. Initially, there was no any undertaking by the husband that he would be responsible for payment of rupees 50 lakhs if the life of wife becomes miserable.

10. Before the trial Court, nothing was agitated in respect of forgery etc. The applicant/husband was at liberty to adduce proper evidence. From the perusal of agreement, it does not appear that it is added afterwards because the font of typing is the same. There is also space in between two lines. Therefore, it cannot be said that this line was added afterwards. This agreement is at Exh.27. Nowhere it is shown that the husband was having his first wife. Therefore, it cannot be said that the wife was having knowledge about the first marriage of husband and desertion on that ground is not proper. Said agreement nowhere shows about first marriage of husband. It only shows about the responsibility of husband and in case of any difficulties in the life of wife, he had agreed to pay rupees 50 lakhs to her. Except that, there is nothing more in the agreement.

11. As per the evidence of wife on record, she has stated that she resided with her husband for about 15 days. She came to know that her husband had first wife and it was not disclosed to her at the time of marriage or before the marriage. She was being treated as maid servant and, therefore, she left the house of her husband.

12. There is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. The respondent/wife left her matrimonial house with reasonable cause. Learned Counsel for the applicant/husband has submitted that the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance is exorbitant. From the evidence of husband, it is clear that he is running an optical shop and having sufficient income. He is the only person who is having personal knowledge about his own income. He was in possession of all the documents to show his real income, but he has not produced any document or not stated specifically about his own income. Therefore, learned trial Court has rightly recorded its findings that the husband should pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance to his wife.

13. Learned Counsel for the applicant/husband has relied on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Jaiminiben Hirenbhai Vyas and another .v. Hirenbhai Rameshchandra Vyas and another (cited supra). The observation of the Apex Court shows that as a normal rule Court can grant maintenance from the date of application. Whenever Court wants to deviate that normal rule and wants to grant maintenance from the date of order, then reasons to be recorded. There is no illegality in the order of the family Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present revision and the same is liable to be dismissed.

14. In the result, Criminal Revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

PAET II

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPR) NO. 334 OF 2018.

Heard.

This is an application for grant of permission to withdraw the amount deposited by the applicant. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.

The respondent/wife is permitted to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only) deposited by the applicant/ husband before this Court.

Decision : Order accordingly.