Hariveer Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:63229

Court No. - 77 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4774 of 2023

Revisionist :- Hariveer Singh Yadav

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Anant Ram Gupta,Ram Bahadur Gupta

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kamal Singh

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Anant Ram Gupta, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and Mr. Kamal Singh, the learned counsel representing opposite parties 2 and 2-A.

2. Perused the record.

3. This criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 24.07.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun in Criminal Misc. Case No. 74 of 2021 (Smt. Samta Devi and Another Vs. Hariveer Singh Yadav), under Section

125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kalpi, District-Jalaun, whereby Court below has allowed aforementioned criminal misc. case and consequently, directed the revisionist to make payment of monthly maintenance @ Rs. 10,000/- in favour of opposite party-2 from the date of application.

4. Learned counsel for revisionist contends that the order impugned in present criminal revision is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for revisionist submits that admittedly, opposite party-2-A, Smt. Samta Devi is not the legally wedded wife of revisionist and therefore, the pre-condition for claiming maintenance in terms of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not satisfied. Consequently, no claim for maintenance could be pressed by opposite party-2-A against revisionist. In support of his aforesaid submission, he has relied upon the following judgments;-

(i). Kewal Singh Vs. Durgabai and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine

MP 1215,

(ii). Rajni Rani V. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine All 647,

(iii). Smriti Singh alias Mausami Singh and Others VS. State of U.P. and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine All 990,

1

(iv). WRIT-C No. 18743 of 2020 (Asha Devi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others) decided on 01.12.2020,

5. It is further contended that since there was no marriage in between the revisionist and the opposite party-2-A, therefore, revisionist cannot be said to be the father of opposite party-2. Consequently, the revisionist cannot be saddled with the liability of maintaining opposite party-2.

6. According to the learned counsel for revisionist, Court below while deciding the claim of opposite parties 2 and 2-A has ignored both the aforesaid aspects of the matter as mentioned above, which has vitiated the order impugned. He, therefore, submits that in view of above and also the fact that revisionist is already married and from his first marriage, there are 2 children and has also to look after his parents, therefore, the condition of revisionist is for more hard pressing than opposite parties 2 and 2-A. It is thus urged that order impugned cannot be sustained and therefore, liable to be set aside by this Court.

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State and the learned counsel representing opposite parties-2 and 2-A have vehemently opposed the present criminal revision. They submit that it is true that revisionist was already married and from his first wife, he has two children. They also admit that liability of the parents of the revisionist is upon the revisionist himself. It is, however, urged that so far as the liability of the revisionist to maintain opposite party 2 is concerned, since revisionist is the biological father of opposite party-2, therefore, he cannot absolve himself of his liability to maintain opposite party-2. Even an illegitimate minor child is entitled to claim maintenance from his biological father. It is then contended that in view of the specific admission made by the revisionist and his first wife before Court below that an expenditure of Rs. 10,000/- each is incurred on the maintenance of the two children born out of the wedlock, therefore, there does not exist any such good reason to deny the same to the illegitimate child of revisionist, even when the right of succession to the estate of revisionist shall accrue in favour of opposite party-2. The

2

learned A.G.A. has then submitted that the issue as to whether, a wife, who is not legally wedded, is entitled to claim maintenance or not, is no longer re-integra and stands decided by the judgments of Supreme Court in;-

(i). Chanmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Another, 2011 (1) SCC 141,

(ii). D. Velusamy Vs.f D Patchaiammal, 2010 (10) SCC 469, (iii). Badshah Vs. Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse and Another,

2014 (1) SCC 188.

8. Learned A.G.A. has then invited the attention of Court to the admission made by the revisionist in paragraphs 10 and 17 of the objections/written statement filed by revisionist before Court below. On the above premise, it is thus urged that neither on the issue of eligibility of opposite parties 2 and 2-A to claim monthly maintenance from revisionist nor on the quantum of maintenance awarded by Court below in favour of opposite parties 2 and 2-A, the findings returned by Court below can be said to be illegal, perverse or erroneous. Once the findings recorded by Court below could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for revisionist, the conclusion cannot be altered. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted by this Court and the revision is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for revisionist could not overcome the same. However, in a futile attempt, the learned counsel for revisionist contends that since the revisionist is out of employment, therefore, the amount of monthly maintenance awarded by Court below be modified. The submission so raised is thoroughly misconceived inasmuch as, the revisionist in paragraph 17 of his written statement/objections has clearly admitted that the income of revisionist is Rs. 33,000/-.

10. Having heard, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State, the learned counsel representing opposite parties- 2 and 2-A and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the

3

grounds on which, the present criminal revision has been filed and pressed, are wholly untenable to dislodge the order impugned. The other issue raised by the learned counsel for revisionist i.e. the revisionist is now out of employment on account of aforementioned proceeding, is a fact which this Court finds is also untenable in law on account of the clear admission made by revisionist in paragraph 17 of the written statement/objections filed by him. In view of the discussion made herein-above, this Court finds that no good ground is made out to entertain the present criminal revision.

11. As a result, the present criminal revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.

12. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 10.4.2024 Vinay

4