Santosh Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajesh Chandra, J.—The revisionist Santosh Kumar Singh has filed thisrevision against the judgment and order dated 24.4.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Saidpur, district Ghazipur, whereby the Magistrate has allowed the application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in favour of opposite party No. 2 Smt. Ranju Singh, directing the revisionist to pay Rule 1,000 per month as maintenance.

In brief the facts of the case are that the wife Smt. Ranju Singh moved an application u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Saidpur, district Ghazipur for maintenance alleging that her marriage took place with Santosh Kumar Singh on 18.6.1999 at village Odihar Kala, P.S. Saidpur, district Ghazipur and sufficient dowry was given at the time of marriage. There was a demand of Rule 10,000cash, two gold bangles and one gold neckless, which demand could not be completed due to insufficiency of finances and for that the wife was being harassed and teased by the husband and his family members. The father of the wife Smt. Ranju Singh assured the revisionist Santosh Kumar Singh for fulfilling the demand within a period of six months. However, the promise could not be honoured by her father and as such Smt. Ranju Singh was beaten. In the meantime Smt. Ranju Singh became pregnant. On 15.10.2000 her husband''s in - laws beat her severely as a result of which miscarriage took place. When the father of Smt. Ranju Singh got the information, he came to the in - laws house on 16.10.2000and brought his daughter Smt. Ranju Singh to his house on 17.10.2000where her treatment took place. The incident was reported at Police Station Saidpur on 19.10.2000 and a case under Sections 498A and 323, I.P.C. was registered. The applicant Smt. Ranju Singh has further alleged that she is unable to maintain herself whereas the husband is having sufficient earning by doing business. The father of the husband is employed in D.L.W. at Varanasi, and earning Rule 15,000per month by way of salary. She prayed that an amount of Rule 1,000 per month be allowed to her as maintenance.

The revisionist Santosh Kumar Singh filed his written statement and denied that the wife Smt. Ranju Singh was ever treated with cruelty or any demand of dowry was ever pressed. According to the husband the wife wanted to live separate from the parents of the husband and when he did not agree to this proposal, she threatened of committing suicide. His further contention is that the applicant Smt. Ranju Singh left her matrimonial house on her own free will and went with her father with all her jewellery etc. The revisionist also filed a suit for divorce which is pending in the Court. His further allegation is that the wife - applicant is earning Rule 100 per day by doing sewing and embroidery work. Regarding himself the husband alleged that he is unemployed youth and is not having any income.

The learned lower court recorded the evidence of both the parties and after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the applicant Smt. Ranju Singh is living separately from her husband for reasonable cause, she is unable to maintain herself and that the husband Santosh Kumar Singh has neglected his wife and is not maintaining her. The Court further found that the husband is doing some business and is also having agricultural land. He can pay the maintenance to the wife. The lower court then ordered for payment of Rule 1,000 per month as maintenance to the wife from the date of application moved u/s 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It is against the order dated 24.4.2003 that this revision has been filed.

In revision I have heard learned Counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. The opposite party Smt. Ranju Singh though engaged her counsel Sri K.K. Yadav, but at the time of hearing Sri Yadav was not present.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that the learned lower court has not examined the evidence in its right perspective and due to misreading of evidence a finding has been recorded to the effect that the applicant''s wife Smt. Ranju Singh was being harassed and teased at the matrimonial house and that her miscarriage took place due to physical assault upon her. His contention is that the wife has failed to prove any reasonable cause to live separate from her husband and as such is not entitled to any maintenance. The learned A.G.A. on the other hand argued that it is a finding of fact that has been arrived at by the learned trial court after considering the evidence produced by the parties in the case and No. interference is required.

I considered over the respective arguments and I have gone through the judgment of the trial court. The trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the applicant''s wife was beaten on or about 15.10.2000as a result of which a miscarriage took place and after this incident the wife was brought to her parental house by her father and thereafter a first information report was registered at police station on19.10.2000. The learned lower court has further found that the allegations have been supported by the medical certificate. I am of the opinion that this finding of fact that the wife is living separately from her husband for sufficient reason is based on the evidence recorded in the trial court and the evidence has rightly been assessed by the trial court. There is No. reason to differ from that finding.

There is No. evidence on record to show that the wife is in a position to maintain her self and as such it is the duty of the revisionist - husband to maintain her wife. The learned lower court has also come to the conclusion that the revisionist - husband is doing some business and is earning his livelihood. The husband although has denied his income and has alleged that he is unemployed youth but that cannot be a ground to exonerate the husband from the legal obligation of maintaining the wife. There is nothing on record to show that the husband is not keeping good health or is suffering from any ailment or is not in apposition to earn livelihood. In the absence of any such evidence it can be presumed that the husband being an able bodied man is capable for earning his livelihood. In the present days, even an unskilled labour is capable of earning Rule 70 - 100 per day and in these circumstances it can safely be held that the revisionist - husband must be earning Rule 2,500to 3,000 per month and from this amount he can easily part with Rule 1,000for her wife, so that she can maintain herself.

Learned Counsel for the revisionist argued that the maintenance has been allowed from the date of application and No. special reasons have been given in the order for the same. His contention is that normally the maintenance should be allowed from the date of order and if the Court has allowed the maintenance from the date of application, the Court should assign special reasons.

I considered over the said argument and I am satisfied that it does not contain any water. The controversy has been set at rest by Hon''ble the Apex Court in Shail Kumari Devi and Another Vs. Krishan Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak, , in which it has been laid down as under:

We, therefore, hold that while deciding an application u/s 125 of the Code, a Magistrate is required to record reasons for granting or refusing to grant maintenance to wives, children or parents. Such maintenance can be awarded from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance, as the case may be. For awarding maintenance from the date of the application, express order is necessary. No. special reasons, however, are required to be recorded by the Court. In our judgment No. such requirement can be read in Sub - section (1) of Section 125 of the Code in absence of express provision to that effect.

From the above judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court it is clear that the argument is not tenable and is therefore rejected.

In view of the entire discussion, I am satisfied that the learned lower court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order and the same has not to be disturbed in exercise of powers as a revisional court.

In view of the above the revision is dismissed.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order within ten days to the Judicial Magistrate, Saidpur, district Ghazipur for information.