Allahabad High Court
Ravindra Kumar vs State Of U.P. & Others on 4 August, 2011
Bench: Rajesh Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2604 of 2009
Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others
Petitioner Counsel :- A.L. Gupta
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra,J.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 30.4.2008 by which the application of opposite party nos. 2 to 5 for interim maintenance has been allowed.
It appears that Smt. Sunita and three minor children moved an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the revisionist Ravindra Kumar alleging therein that the revisionist Ravindra Kumar was married to the opposite party no.2 Smt. Sunita about 15 years and from this marriage three children were born. It was further mentioned in the application that the applicant is unable to maintain her herself and her children whereas the opposite party husband is earning Rs. 12,000/-.
During the pendency of that application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure an application for interim maintenance was moved. Against that application, an objection was filed by the husband Ravindra Kumar mentioning therein that the applicant wife and the children are living with the opposite party husband and he is maintaining them. It was also alleged that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been moved by giving incorrect address of the applicant though in fact all the applicants are living with the husband. It was further alleged that the brothers of the applicant's wife are unsocial elements and are instigating the wife against the husband so that the husband may be murdered and they may usurp the fund and pension etc. of the husband.
The lower court after hearing the parties and after going through the relevant documents came to the conclusion that the opposite party husband is earning Rs. 10,319/- by way of salary and ordered to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to the applicants.
It is against this order dated 30.4.2008 that the present revision has been filed.
I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.
The notice of this revision has been served upon the opposite party no.2, who is also guardian of opposite party nos. 3 to 5, but she has not put in appearance in the revision.
The main thrust of the learned counsel for the revisionist is upon the fact that the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 are living with the revisionist in the same house and the question of allowing maintenance to them does not arise. It has further been argued that the petition has been filed at the behest of the brothers of the opposite party Smt. Sunita by giving wrong address in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It was also argued that the revisionist is maintaining his parents who are living in the village and as such, the question of granting maintenance to the opposite party does not arise.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the said arguments and I feel that the same are not convincing. The question as to whether the applicants are living with the revisionist in the same house or not is yet to be decided by the trial court after the evidence is recorded there. The present order is with regard to the interim maintenance and since the opposite party no.2 Smt. Sunita is the wife and the opposite party nos. 3 to 5 are the children of the revisionist, they are entitled for interim maintenance. There is nothing on record to show that the opposite party nos. 2 to 5 are having any independent income.
In view of the above, I am satisfied that the Magistrate concerned has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order.
The revision is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
The revision is dismissed.
A copy of this order be sent to the lower court for information.
The interim stay, if any, is vacated.
Order Date :- 4.8.2011
AK
