Hon'ble Vijay Prakash Pathak, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA for the State of U.P and perused the record.
Present petition has been filed with the prayer to set aside the order dated 23.04.2010 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Etah in cases no. 1754 of 2007 and 4742 of 2004 (Smt. Najama Begam v. Salimuddin), under Section 125 Cr.P.C As well as judgment and order dated 12.04.2013 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Etah in criminal revision No. 93 of 2010 dismissing the said revision.
The brief facts of the case are that the respondents no. 2 & 3 being wife and minor daughter of petitioner filed applications under Section 125 Cr.P.C no. 1754 of 2007 and 4742 of 2004 before Judicial Magistrate, Etah with the allegations that respondent no. 2 was married with the petitioner on 28.07.1999, but after the marriage the petitioner and other in-laws started demanding additional dowry and in pursuance of the said demand have committed mar-peet and tortured her. Subsequently, a Panchayat took place but again they started mar-peet with her and also threatened to get the second marriage done. It has also been alleged that the respondent no. 2 has no source of income, whereas the petitioner has a good house in Delhi from which at least Rs. 10,000/- comes from rent and he has also bangles shop from which he earns Rs. 12,000/- per month and accordingly Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance allowance was asked for by respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 3, minor daughter has also alleged that her mother was being neglected and hence she had filed an application for maintenance in the year 2002. It is also alleged that during the pendency of the said application it was assured by the petitioner that he will not commit mar-peet in future nor tortured her and had made compromise on 01.09.2003 and on the basis of said compromise, respondent no. 2 went with the petitioner to her Sasural, but after sometime they again started demanding dowry and torturing her. In the meantime, she became pregnant and was left in pregnant position by the petitioner and subsequently, respondent no. 3 was born from their wedlock. It has also been alleged that minor daughter has no source for her maintenance and accordingly Rs. 2000/- per month was asked for.
Against the said applications, the petitioner filed objection admitting his marriage with respondent no. 2 but he has refutted the other allegations made by the respondent no. 2. He has also denied respondent no. 3 to be his daughter.
Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims.
The learned Magistrate after considering the allegations and evidence of both the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner and his family members were torturing the respondent no. 2 in pursuance of demand of additional dowry. It has also been observed that for the demand of dowry respondent no. 2 was turned out from the house of the petitioner. It has also been held that the petitioner has admitted in his cross-examination that from their wedlock a daughter was born, the name of which is Mahak. The learned Magistrate has also observed that the respondents no. 2 & 3 are being neglected without any sufficient cause. The learned trial court has further observed that the petitioner is doing business of bangles at the shop and hence he has sufficient means of income and accordingly Rs. 2000/- per month to respondent no. 2 and Rs. 1000/- per month to respondent no. 3 have been awarded as maintenance allowance from the date of application vide judgment and order dated 23.04.2010
Aggrieved against the said judgment and order dated 23.04.2010, the petitioner filed a criminal revision no. 93 of 2010, which has also been dismissed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Etah vide its judgment and order dated 12.04.2013
Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that the petitioner was ready to keep the respondent no. 2 with him but she, without cause, did not come forward to live with him. It is also submitted that the learned courts below have illegally passed the order directing to pay maintenance allowance from the date of application.
On the other hand, learned AGA supported the judgments and orders passed by both the courts below.
I have considered the said arguments and have perused the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the courts below.
Learned Magistrate has considered the matter in detail and on the basis of material on record came to the conclusion that the petitioner and his family members were torturing the respondent no. 2 for demand of additional dowry and she was neglected by the petitioner. It has also been held that the respondent no. 3 Km. Mahak was born from the wedlock of petitioner and respondent no. 2. It has also been held that the respondent no. 2 was neglected without sufficient cause. It has also been held that the petitioner has sufficient source of income and he was doing business of selling bangles and accordingly Rs. 2000/- per month to respondent no. 2 and Rs. 1000/- per month to respondent no. 3 have been awarded as maintenance allowance from the date of application. The learned lower revisional court has also considered the matter in detail and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner finding no illegality or material irregularity in the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate.
In view of Section 125(2) Cr.P.C it was the sole discretion of the Magistrate concerned to pass the order of maintenance from the date of application or from the date of the order and in this matter the learned Magistrate has passed the order awarding maintenance allowance from the date of application. The said discretion has rightly been exercised by the learned trial court which does not require interference by this Court under its writ jurisdiction.
In view of aforesaid considerations, this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.