Allahabad High Court
Smt. Archana vs State Of U.P. & Another on 11 September, 2015
Bench: Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1966 of 2011
Revisionist :- Smt. Archana
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Pandey,Anil Kumar Aditya
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.
1.This revision has been filed against the order dated 03-02-20011 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Chakia, Chandauli, in Case no. 2/ 2009 Archana Devi v. Akhilesh Kumar, under section 125 Cr.P.C., p.s. Chakia.
2.Applicants (present revisionist) had filed a petition u/s 125 CrPC with averment that she is legally married to OP- Akhilesh Kumar. Sometime after marriage OP treated revisionists with cruelty and deserted them without any reason. Thereafter she is living with her parents who are unable to bear her expenses. Applicant has no source of income while the OP is in government service and has sufficient income to maintain them. Therefore applicant has filed the application for maintenance of herself and her minor daughter.
3.Opposite Party Akhilesh Kumar had been served service of notice of the case, but had not appeared, so case proceeded ex-parte against him in lower Court.
4.After accepting ex-parte evidences and affording opportunity of hearing learned Magistrate had allowed petition of applicant (present revisionist) by judgment dated 03-02-2001 for monthly maintenance of Rs. 1500/- for applicant-wife and Rs. 500/- for minor daughter, to be paid from the date of application.
5.Against this impugned judgment dated 20-08-2009 the applicant (present revisionist) had preferred present for enhancement of amount of maintenance awarded by Magistrate Court.
6.It is admitted fact between the parties that marriage of parties had been dissolved by decree of divorce. It is also admitted that daughter of the parties is living with her mother- revisionist. It is also admitted, and is hereby appreciated, that father of the child (present respondent no.-2 Akhilesh Kumar) is willing to bear expenses of his daughter, and has expressed his consent for enhancement of her maintenance amount. But respondent side had shown its unwillingness to pay any maintenance to ex-wife that is revisionist.
7.Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that insufficient maintenance was awarded by Magistrate which should be enhanced for both revisionist and her daughter.
8.I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and gone through records.
9.Learned Magistrate had considered facts, circumstances and adduced evidences before reaching on conclusion of amount of maintenance. So far amount awarded by Magistrate court is concerned it is a finding of fact given by trial court on basis of available facts and evidences.
10.In Jagannath Choudhary & ors vs. Ramayan Singh & another, AIR 2002 S.C. 2229 Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that:
?Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed. If the impugned order apparently is presentable, without any such infirmity which may render it completely perverse or unacceptable and when there is no failure of justice, interference cannot be had in exercise of revisional jurisdiction?. - - - ?It is not an appeal wherein scrutiny of evidence is possible, neither the revisional jurisdiction is open for being exercised simply by reason of the factum of another view being otherwise possible.?
11.A perusal of original record of Court below shows that impugned order of Magistrate regarding amount of maintenance is based on such findings that may be one of the conclusions on those evidences. In such a case, applying the abovementioned legal position, there is no justification for substituting the findings of trial court by reappraisal of evidence and make interference in impugned order of maintenance from the date of the order. Therefore the argument of learned counsel for revisionist on the point of maintenance for revisionist is not acceptable.
12.But the daughter of parties is entitled to receive maintenance from her father during her minority, and for this respondent is willingly ready, even for its enhancement. Undoubtedly an amount of Rs. 500/- is not sufficient to meet the expenses of fooding, dresses, education, medical and other like expenses of a child in present set of circumstances. Therefore I found it proper to enhance the maintenance awarded to daughter of parties should be enhanced to Rs. 2500/- per month.
13.On the basis of above discussion the revision is partially allowed. Accordingly the impugned order dated 03-02-2011 is modified to the extent that the maintenance amount of daughter of the parties is enhanced to Rs. 2500/- per month from the date of this order.
Order Date :- 11.9.2015
Sanjeev
