- (1.) I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA. This is a criminal revision filed against the judgment and order dated 6-6-98 passed by the Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 255 of 1996, Smt. Anju Shukla v. Shree Kant Shukla, by means of which the learned Court below has awarded main tenance to Respondent No. 2 @ Rs. 500 per month in the proceedings under Sec tion 125 Crpc. When the revision was filed this Court held that both the parties be directed to remain present and in case it is possible to reconcile then it would be bet ter in comparison to consider the matter of maintenance. Hence vide order dated 9-9-98 this Court directed the Respondent No. 2 as well as the revisionist to appear in person before this Court on 25-9-98 and in the meantime the operation of the order passed by the learned Court below was stayed. On 25-9-98 Shree Kant Shukla as well as his wife Smt. Anju Shukla, Respon dent No. 2 appeared in person and state ment of both the persons were recorded. Shree Kant Shukla has stated in his state ment that Smt. Anju Shukla is his wife and she is living separately for the last about 5 years, but he is ready to keep his wife with him. He has also stated that he has not performed any other marriage and will not harass her and she would be provided all the basic amenities of livelihood and there would be no problem regarding the dowry etc. He also undertook to produce her from time to time as required by this Court and in case she lives with him he will not pursue any case filed by him and this Court may quash all the proceedings pending in the Court below either by way of dowry or any other case. Smt. Anju Shukla stated in her statement that she is living separately for the last about 5 years. She does not want to say anything against her husband at the moment and she has given the state ment that her husband has undertaken before this Court that he will keep her happily and will provide all the basic amenities of livelihood. She has also un dertaken that in case he keeps her happily she would have no grievance if the Court quashes all the proceedings pending in the Court below either filed by her parents or her husband.
(2.) IN view of the above, this Court stayed further proceedings in the case registered as case crime No. 127/93 under Section 498-A IPC against the revisionist or any criminal case against the revisionist/respondent or in respect of dis pute between husband and wife. The proceedings filed by Shree Kant Shukla regarding divorce in the Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 127/93 under Section 498-A IPC, P. S. Bajaria, Kanpur Nagar and Case No. 85/96 under Dowry Prohibition Act pending in the Court of Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court Kan pur Nagar were also stayed. On the above date the revisionist prayed the Court for time to make neces sary arrangement to keep his wife with him. He was allowed a fortnight's time to make necessary arrangement and the case was ordered to be listed on 14-10-98 with a direction that both husband and wife alongwith their parents shall appear in persons before this Court. On 14-10-98 this Court was not available hence in the order- sheet Respondent No. 2 Anju Shuk la, Kirpra Shankar Dixit and Ram Shree Devi has signed and then promised to ap pear on 26-8-99 on which date when the case was listed, the learned Counsel for the revisionist made a prayer to grant one more opportunity for the appearance of the revisionist before this Court as the revisionist was not present on that date. Smt. Anju Shukla, Respondent No. 2 was present with her parents, but no one was present from the side of the revisionist. This Court fixed for 9- 11-98 for ap pearance of both the parties and on that both the parties appeared in person before this Court. But Shree Kant Shukla, revisionist stated that he is not capable to keep his wife with him, although his wife Smt. Anju Shukla was ready to go with him. The parents of Shree Kant Shukla had also not come and on enquiry it was informed to the Court that they have refused to come to the Court. Shree Kant Shukla has stated that he earns Rs. 3000-3500 per month at Delhi. In view of the statement made by the revisionist at earlier and later refused to keep his wife with him, this Court is of the opinion that the revisionist has no case in his favour and the judgment and order passed by the learned Court below dated 6-6-98 does not require any interference by this Court.
(3.) IN the result revision fails and is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned Court below by the Registry. It is hereby made clear that the interim orders dated 9-9-98 as well as dated 25-9-98 are vacated. The criminal cases and the investigation may go on and be concluded in accordance with law without any hindrance by his Court's order passed in this revision. IN view of the above observations, the revision is dismissed with cost assessed at Rs. two thousand only. Revision dismissed. .;