Allahabad High Court: Brij Raj Singh, J., while discussing the matter with regard to providing maintenance to a wife, noted that the Court below had made observations on being influenced by factual aspects which were not proved.
The instant revision was preferred to set aside the decision of the Family Court in a criminal case under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code and to direct the OP to pay at least Rs 10,000 as monthly maintenance.
Background
The wife submitted that she was married to OP 1 prior to 40 years and out of the wedlock three children were born. The OP 2 had provided maintenance to her till 1983, but thereafter it was stopped by him. Further, she stated that she was dependent on her brother who used to provide financial assistance but suddenly had gone missing. She had filed the application as she has no source of income, and hence needed maintenance from her husband.
Point Wise Discussion
- Revisionist stated that the OP 2 had performed second marriage and had deserted her, but the said fact was not dealt with by the lower Court and the finding had been recorded that she was unable to show why she was living separately.
- The fact that some property was sold by the revisionist and out of that money she was maintaining her children, could not be inferred that the revisionist had lost her opportunity for grant of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
- The finding that revisionist was unable to state as to whether her children were literate or illiterate or how much they were educated, would be a perverse finding for determination of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
- The court below has further recorded a finding that all the three children were settled by her; thus, she was having means to sustain herself. If some income was received by her out of sold property, it does not mean that she would sustain throughout life.
- The court below has further recorded a finding that the opposite party 2 stated the fact that revisionist had illicit relation with Ram Singh @ Manjeet Singh and the said fact was not denied by her. The said finding is also perverse because statement of fact cannot be relied on because it will have serious repercussions unless it is proved.
In Court’s opinion, the lower Court had rejected the application without application of mind, hence the matter was remanded to the Court below to take a fresh decision. [Krishna Devi v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine All 303, decided on 4-5-2022]
