Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) This criminal revision has been preferred assailing judgment and order dated 9/12/2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah in case No. 314 of 2013, Smt. Suman Lata vs Ram Niwas, under section 125 Cr. P.C., PS, Mirhachi by which allowing the application of opposite party No. 2, the revisionist has been directed to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per month.
(2.) The contention of the revisionist is that the opposite party No. 2 had admitted on oath to have received Rs. 1,25,000/- as maintenance by one-time settlement for whole life in an earlier filed case No. 147 of 2010, Suman Lata Vs. Ram Niwas, which the learned Principal Judge Family Court omitted to take into consideration. In the judgement and order dated 03.07.2010 passed by Additional Civil Judge Junior Division /Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 22, Etah, it was clearly recorded that opposite party No. 2 had deserted the revisionist herself. In her statement, she had stated voluntarily that in lieu of her being paid Rs. 1,25,000/-, she would not make any further demand for maintenance. The provision under section 125 (4) has been ignored which stipulates that the wife would not be entitled to any maintenance if she stays separately with mutual consent. The learned Court below had recorded that it was wrong to say that the revisionist had got the earlier case decided adopting devious means of managing an imposter to appear as opposite party in the said case and procured a compromise to the effect that in lieu of monthly payment of maintenance, one-time amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- would suffice and that no further maintenance amount would be claimed by opposite party no. 2. In this background, the prayer is made that the impugned judgement be set aside/quashed.
(3.) Perused the impugned judgement. The facts as mentioned in the said judgement in nutshell are that opposite party No. 2 was married to the revisionist on 26.04.2001 in accordance with Hindu rites. The folks at matrimonial house were unhappy with her due to lesser amount of dowry and were demanding additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- in cash, due to non-fulfilment of the said demand she was being tortured physically and mentally. On 31.05.2007, she was beaten and thereafter on 02.06.2007 she was thrown out of matrimonial house, as a result of which she started living in the house of her parents. She had no means to survive, her parents being very poor. She had moved an application for maintenance registered as Case No. 147 of 2010 , but the revisionist has shown the said case to have been compromised by asking an imposter to pose as his wife and on the basis of the alleged compromise, the case of maintenance was dismissed. It was further mentioned that the opposite party possessed 10 'bighas' of land, had a ''pukka' house in village, had business of sale of milk, had a tailor shop and by all these means, used to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month.;