Nandlal Pathak vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 7295 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 76
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 708 of 2021
 

 
Revisionist :- Nandlal Pathak
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Santosh Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

Heard Sri Santosh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist through video conference, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2021 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 1, Varanasi in Criminal Misc. Application No. 117 of 2016 (Kavita Pathak Vs. Nandlal Pathak) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Jansa, District-Varanasi by which opposite party no. 2 awarded Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance payable upto the 10 date of every month.

Submission made by the counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is a jobless person having no source of income and he has been unable to pay Rs. 3000/- per month. He further submitted that the Court below has not considered that the opposite party no.2 (wife) is living separately from the revisionist without any reasonable reason so she is not liable to get any maintenance from the revisionist. After recording the statements of the contesting parties, without considering the facts and evidence on record allowed the application of opposite party no.2, awarded her Rs. 3000/- per month as maintenance payable upto the 10 date of every month.

Per contra learned A.G.A. stated that the court below passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of the revisionist and opposite party no.2, in such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the court does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs. 3000/- for the opposite party no. 2 which in the present days of high price rise cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance which has been wrongly denied. The fact that the revisionist is the husband of opposite party no.2, has not been denied.

In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.

In view of the above, the revision lacks merit and stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 8.7.2021

SA