ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER vs JAGIIWAN LAL PATEL

This criminal revision is directed against order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashta, District Sehore, in Criminal Revision No.95/2016, whereby the order dated 9.6.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashta, in M.J.C. No.69/2014 awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs.1000/- per month to petitioner/wife Samshad Bi and Rs.600/- each to petitioners daughters Nazia and Subhana under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., was set aside.

After the trial, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class held that petitioner/wife Samshad is legally married wife of the respondent/husband and petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are his daughters. The petitioner is unable to maintain herself and the respondent/husband, in spite of having sufficient means, is refusing or neglecting to maintain them; therefore, the respondent/husband was directed to pay Rs.1000/- per month to petitioner/wife Samshad Bi and Rs.600/- per month each to minor daughters Nazia and Subhana.

The order dated 9.6.2016 passed by the Magistrate was challenged before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Ashta, District Sehore in criminal revision No.95/2016. Learned Additional Sessions was of the view that respondent/husband is willing to keep petitioner/wife with him and maintain her; however, the petitioner/wife declined to join the company of respondent even if a guarantee of her safety and well being was taken. It was further held that even during their separation, the respondent used to send money to petitioner/wife Samshad Bi for maintenance of their daughters. Thus, the respondent is ready and willing to keep the petitioner with them; however, the petitioner/wife made baseless allegations against the respondent for dowry harassment. Learned Additional Sessions Judge also held that petitioner did not examine either her parents or any of the relatives in support of allegations of dowry harassment. The criminal case under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. lodged in this regard by the petitioner resulted in acquittal of respondent on the basis of compromise. After that, the respondent took a separate house on rent and kept the petitioner therein, yet she petitioner deserted him; therefore, she is not entitled to live separately and claim maintenance from the respondent.

The impugned order has been challenged on behalf of the petitioner mainly on the ground that learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, on due appreciation of evidence and after assigning cogent reasons, had recorded its findings and awarded maintenance to the petitioners. The revisionary Court, on sustainable grounds, interfered with the findings of the Magistrate. In fact during the pendency of the criminal case, the respondent enticed petitioner Samshad Bi and induced her to turn hostile. Believing in false promises made by the respondent, the petitioner deposed in his favour resulting in his acquittal; however, after his acquittal, the respondent continued with his same old ways; therefore, the petitioner was constrained to live separately with her daughters and claim maintenance.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has supported the impugned order.

After perusal of the record and on due consideration of the rival contentions, the Court is of the view that this criminal revision must succeeds for the reasons hereinafter stated:

It has to be noted at the outset that in the revisionary jurisdiction, a Court is not expected to meticulously to re- appreciate the evidence. The revisionary Court has only to see whether the impugned award suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety. The relation between the parties is not in dispute in this case. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner and her two minor daughters Nazia and Subhana are living separately at present from the respondent. The only question that is required to be considered is whether the petitioner Samshad Bi is entitled to live separately from her husband and claim maintenance. In other words, whether she is living separately of her own free will and accord or has been compelled by the circumstances created by the respondent to live separately. In the later case, she would be entitled to claim maintenance.

It is true that the respondent has made some gestures of goodwill towards his daughters. After that the petitioner entered into a compromise with the respondent. He started living separately in a rented house with the petitioner and their daughters. However, that by itself is not sufficient to prove that the respondent has not created such circumstances, wherein his wife cannot be expected to live with him. The petitioner has made categorically allegations that the respondent and his family members used to harass and persecute her in connection with their demand for a motorcycle and Rs.30,000/- by way of dowry. She also lodged a report in this regard with the police resulting in prosecution of the respondent under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. The petitioner also entered into a compromise with the respondent in the criminal proceedings. She would not have entered into the compromise, if she was not interested in giving a second chance to her relationship with the respondent; thus, she also made a gesture of goodwill towards the respondent; however, this is second attempt to revive the relationship also failed. A young women is unlikely to walk out of a relationship with two minor daughters, unless she had sufficient grounds for doing so. The circumstances in the case cannot be interpreted against the petitioner on the sole ground that she failed to examine her parents or any other relatives in support of her allegation of dowry harassment. Thus, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in interfering with the exercise of discretion by the Judicial Magistrate; therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner and her two minor daughters are entitled to the meager amount awarded to them by way of maintenance by learned Magistrate.

In the result, this criminal revision succeeds. The impugned order dated 20.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ashta in criminal revision No.95/2016, is set aside. The order dated 9.6.2016, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashta, District Sehore, in M.J.C.No.69/2014 is restored.