MANISH SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi in Misc. Case No.454 of 2013 (Mrs. Vibha Singh vs. Mr. Manish Singh) whereby an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month has been awarded to the opposite party no. 2 by way of interim maintenance and an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month to her minor daughter.

(2.) In the ground of the revision it is stated that the opposite party no. 2 refused to live with the the revisionist without any sufficient cause or reason although he is willing to take his wife back. She herself deserted, neglected and cruelly treated him. Under section 126 Cr.P.C. the territorial jurisdiction of the present case does not lie at Varanasi. The opposite party no. 2 in the past has been residing at a number of places throughout India like New Delhi, Noida and Guwahti and keeps on changing the city for her residence. The letter dated 14.2012 addressed to the revisionist, clearly indicates that she was residing in Noida. She can file case under section 125 Cr.P.C. in Kolkata where revisionist resides, or where the revisionist or the opposite party no. 2 reside or where the revisionist last resided with the opposite party no. 2 i.e. Kolkata. It was incorrect observation made by the court below that the revisionist had given consent to the opposite party no. 2 to file the case under section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act wherever she liked which was mentioned by the revisionist in legal notice sent to the opposite party no. The said consent did not relate to the waiving off of jurisdiction in criminal case to be filed by the opposite party no. The allegation of cruelty made by the opposite party no. 2 against the revisionist and his family members are baseless which is prima-facie proved from the fact that till date no criminal case has been initiated against him under section 498A IPC or Domestic Violation Act, 2005. Such allegations are unfounded and baseless and have been made with an ulterior motive. On 19.9.2008 a child was born out of their wedlock, but information was not sent to the revisionist or his parents by the opposite party no. 2 or her family members. The father of the opposite party no. 2 never allowed any person from the family of the revisionist to talk to her and kept her whereabouts concealed which clearly suggests that the opposite party no. 2 and her family members are indulging in cruelty towards the revisionist and his family members. The opposite party no. 2 has not approached the court with clean hands because she herself has deserted the revisionist which has given huge mental shock and trauma to the revisionist. They had not allowed him to talk to his daughter even on phone nor did they allow him to meet her. These circumstances have driven him to mental depression which has caused him enormous loss in his professional field of legal practice. Therefore, the prayer is made that the revision be allowed and the impugned order dated 19.11.2014 be set aside. He may be given visitation right to meet his child Ms. Anushka Singh. He has filed an affidavit dated 10.2015 in support of his version, against which the opposite party no. 2 has filed counter affidavit dated 28.4.2015 and supplementary counter affidavit dated 14.5.2017. The revisionist has filed rejoinder affidavit dated 6.7.2015.

(3.) The revisionist in person has argued before this Court and has raised following points for consideration.