Narendra Verma vs Vandana Verma and Another

Vinod Prasad, J.—Smt. Vandana Verma respondent No. 1 is the legally wedded wife of Narendra Verma revisionist. Nuptial naught between two was solemnized according to Hindu customs and rites on 152001 at District Jhansi. Rs. 2 lakhs and many other ornaments were given in the marriage but the revisionist Narendra Verma and his family members started demanding Rs. two lakhs more. Because of the nonfulfillment of the said demand wife Vandana Verma was tortured and was even assaulted. She was ultimately turned out of her inlaw house and her welfare was not cared thereafter by her husband and therefore, left with no option she filed an application for maintenance before the Principal Judge, Family Court Jhansi, which was registered as Case No. 209/02 Vandana Verma v. Narendra Verma, under Section 125 Cr. P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Jhansi. The grounds were that she was unable to maintain herself when her husband Narendra Verma the revisionist has got a jewelry shop and his income is around Rs. 15,000/ per month. Wife respondent No. 2 claimed Rs. 5,000/ as maintenance from her husband.

Narendra Verma revisionist was noticed and he filed a written objection denying the allegations regarding the demand of dowry etc. and pleaded that respondent wife was coercing him to get the house of his father partitioned and that he should live with her in District Jhansi for which the revisionist, who was resident of District Allahabad, was no agreeable. It was further pleaded by the husband that in the month of December 2001 Rs. 40,000/ were taken as loan by the father of respondent wife from the father of the revisionist husband and the same was not paid. It was further averred that in the month of January 2002 respondent wife left the inlaws hence and alongwith her cloths, ornaments and Rs. 7,000/ cash and came back to her maternal home. It was also averred that husband had filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution conjugal rights being Application No. 472/02 against the wife. It was also averred by the husband that he is unemployed and respondent wife earns about Rs. 2,000/ from tailoring business. With the aforesaid claim it was prayed that the application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P.C. filed by the wife be dismissed.

Respondent No. 1 Vandana Verma in support of her case, examined herself as P.W. 1 and she filed documentary evidences including various orders passed by civil Court.

Revisionist husband in support of his case examined himself as O.P.W. 1 and he also filed various documentary evidence.

Principal Judge Family Court Jhansi after critically appreciating the evidence led by both sides and looking into merits of the matter allowed the application of the respondent wife for maintenance vide his impugned order dated 318 2006 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 1,000/ as maintenance from the date of the judgment 3182006 on or before 10th day of every succeeding month.

Aggrieved by the said maintenance order dated 3182006, husband revisionist has filed the instant revision in this Court.

Counteraffidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged in this revision.

I have heard Sri M.S. Haq learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Hitesh Pachauri Advocate holding brief of Sri P.K. Verma learned Counsel for the respondent and learned A.G.A.

An attempt was made by this Court for reconciliation as the dispute was between the husband and wife but the said attempt did not yield any result as the wife categorically stated that she was so tortured that now it is not possible for her to join the company of her husband.

I have perused the impugned order, affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit.

From the argument raised and pleadings made in this application it is admitted that the relationship between husband and wife subsist between revisionist Narendra Verma and respondent Vandana Verma. It is also not disputed that revisionist has not paid any money to the respondent wife Vandana Verma for her maintenance at all since last four years. From the pleadings it also transpires that in the application for restitution of conjugal rights was filed by the husband revisionist he was ordered to pay interim maintenance to the wife but he did not pay even that to the wife. Moreover, his application was dismissed in default on 112006. A perusal of order sheet of that case Annexure CA1 indicates that last opportunity was given to the husband for appearance in that application of restitution of conjugal rights and even a cost of Rs. 100/ was imposed on him by Principal Judge Family Court, Allahabad but the husband revisionist neither paid the cost nor appeared in the Court and hence his application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed by the Principal Judge Family Court, Allahabad on 2012006 with a special cost of Rs. 1,500/. The wife is unable to maintain herself and Section 125 Cr. P.C. is an emergency provision enabling the wife to get maintenance from her husband. It is incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent vagrancy amongst married wives.

Principal Judge Family Court had recorded a finding that the husband has got enough source of income and he has neglected and refused to maintain his wife since at least from June, 2002. It has also recorded a finding that the wife does not want to join the company of the husband, as she was tortured and assaulted. This finding has also been recorded that the wife has instituted a case under Sections 498A and 406 IPC against the husband. With further reasons recorded in the impugned order, Principal Judge had allowed the application of the wife for her maintenance.

I do not find any illegality or perversity either in the appreciation of evidences or application of law by Principal Judge Family Court Jhansi while passing the impugned order dated 3182006.

14.This revision is, therefore, meritless and it is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.