Rahil Ahmad vs State Of U.P.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1827 ALL

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 1827 ALL
Judgement Date : 16 May, 2012

Allahabad High Court

Rahil Ahmad vs State Of U.P. on 16 May, 2012

Bench: Ravindra Singh




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 12
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 527 of 2002
 

 
Petitioner :- Rahil Ahmad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
 
Petitioner Counsel :- M.B.Singh
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate,H.S.Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

List is revised.

Learned counsel for the revisionist is not present.

This revision has been filed against the judgement and order dated 4.10.2002 passed learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-II, Sultanpur in Criminal Revision No. 364 of 2008 whereby the revision has been allowed and revisionist has been directed to pay the amount of Rs. 500/- per month to the O.P. No. 2.

By setting aside the judgement and order dated 26.7.2001 passed by V-Addl. C.J.M. Sultanpur in criminal case No. 1201 of 1998 whereby the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by O.P. No. 2 has bee rejected.

From the perusal of the impugned order dated 26.7.2001 passed by learned V-Addl. C.J.M. Sultanpur it appears that the applicant is husband of the O.P. No. 2. The trial court has not recorded any finding that the O.P.No. 2 is able to maintain herself, even then the learned Magistrate concerned rejected the application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. The order dated 26.7.2001 has been challenged by O.P. No. 2 way way of criminal revision No. 364 of 2001 , the same has been allowed by learned Addl. Session Judge/ FTC-II, Sultanpur. It appears that the revisional court has passed a well reasoned order and has not committed any error in setting aside the order passed by learned V-Addl. C.J.M., Sultanpur because the finding recorded by the trial court itself is that the the revisionist is husband of the O.P. No. 2 and there is no finding that the O.P.No. 2 is able to maintain herself. In such circumstances, the revisional court has not committed any error in setting aside the order dated 26.7.2001. The impugned order dated 4.10.2002 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge/ FTC-II, Sultanpur in criminal revision No. 364 of 2001 is not suffering from any illegality, the prayer for quashing the same is refused.

The interim order dated 11.11.2002 is hereby vacated.

According this revision is dismissed.

Let a copy of this order be communicated to learned Sessions Judge, Sultanpur forthwith for the compliance.

Order Date :- 16.5.2012

RPD