Allahabad High Court
Mobeen vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others on 11 August, 2016
Bench: Harsh Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1918 of 2016
Revisionist :- Mobeen
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Satyendra Narayan Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
Vakalatnama filed by Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos.2 & 3 today in the Court, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the impugned order is wrong on facts of law; that the maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month for wife and Rs.2000/- per month for minor daughter of revisionist has been awarded from the date of order; that the revisionist has no source of income and is only a labour; that the land is in the name of his father; that the revisionist had purchased a truck on loan, the instalment of which could not be paid by him; that the revisionist is not able to make payment of the excessive maintenance awarded by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad.
Per contra, learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 submitted that the revisionist has been avoiding the hearing of maintenance petition filed in the year 2011 and due to delaying tactics of the revisionist, it could not be decided for a period of five years; that the revisionist is the only son of his father and his father owns more than 40 bighas of agricultural land and tractor etc., which is being looked after by the revisionist, as has been admitted by him in his statement; that it is not disputed that respondent no.3 is daughter of revisionist; that a sum of Rs.7000/- per month may hardly be sufficient for maintenance of two persons, out of which one is minor child, while her education is also to be looked after; that the revisionist is also an owner of a truck and loan has been obtained only to show that he has no money; that there is no illegality in the impugned order and in fact maintenance ought to have been awarded w.e.f. date of filing of the maintenance petition.
Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that it is admitted in written statement that respondent nos.2 & 3 are wife and daughter of revisionist and there has been matrimonial dispute between the parties. The respondent no.2 states that all the ornaments and valuables were kept by the revisionist, at the time when she was ousted from her matrimonial house but on the other hand the revisionist states that entire valuables and ornaments were taken by her, respondent no.2. The above dispute is not the subject matter of this revision. It may not be disputed that a sum of Rs.5000/- per month to wife and Rs.2000/- per month to minor daughter, may hardly be sufficient for their maintenance particularly in view of educational needs of growing daughter. The maintenance has not been awarded from the date of application.
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that the revisionist has failed to show any illegality, irregularity, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with or for setting it aside the impugned order. The revision has got no force and is liable to be dismissed at admission stage.
The revision is dismissed, accordingly.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 11.8.2016
Tamang
