Shrawan Kumar Alias Sarman vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 8836 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 86
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 855 of 2016
 

 
Revisionist :- Shrawan Kumar Alias Sarman
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vimal Kumar,Chandra Prakash Pandey,Shailendra Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Kr. Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for opposite parties are present.

The present criminal revision has been moved against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.1.2016 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kannauj, in Case No. 197 of 2012-13 (Arti Devi and Another Vs. Shrawan) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kannauj, District-Kannauj. Further prayer to stay the effect and operation of the aforesaid judgment has also been made. By the impugned judgment and order the revisionist has been ordered to pay maintenance of a sum of Rs. 2000/-per month (Rs. 700/- to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 1300/- to opposite party no.3).

Learned counsel for the revisionist-applicant has submitted that the opposite party no. 2 after solemnized her second marriage with the revisionist, lived with the revisionist but after some time she came into contact with one Awadhesh Kumar and she alongwith Awadhesh Kumar tried to kill the revisionist by poisoning. Thereafter opposite party no.2 left the house of the revisionist with entire ornaments and other valuable items and since then she has been living with Awadhesh Kumar. It is next contented that the Court below has not considered the evidence produced on behalf of the revisionist, as such, impugned order passed by the court below is bad in the eyes of law being too excessive.

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the Opposite Party No.2 is the wife of the revisionist-applicant, who is an employee in the Electricity Department and has sufficient means to be able to maintain her according to the family standard. Moreover, the learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any manifest error or otherwise illegality, procedural or otherwise, so as to justify interference in criminal revision.

In view of above, impugned order is just, proper and legal and does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error.

Present criminal revision being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly revision is dismissed.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately.

Order Date :- 28.7.2021

S.Verma