Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Singh @ Pintu vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 29 July, 2021
Bench: Vipin Chandra Dixit
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 88
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4 of 2018
Revisionist :- Sanjay Singh @ Pintu
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narsingh Pandey
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist-husband against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.10.2017 passed by Family Court/Fast Track Court No.2, Basti by which application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party nos.2 and 3 was partly allowed awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance allowance in favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3 each.
List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of the revisionist to press this criminal revision. Learned A.G.A. is present for the State.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The opposite party nos.2 and 3 who are wife and minor daughter of revisionist had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month. It is pleaded that the husband had earned Rs.20,000/- per month but did not pay any amount as maintenance to the opposite party nos.2 and 3, whereas opposite party is a Pardanashi lady having no income to maintain her and her minor daughter. Revisionist had appeared before the learned Family Court and had filed his objection denying the allegation of wife. It is pleaded by husband that he is a labour having no fix monthly income and the wife is able to maintain herself.
Admittedly, the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist and opposite party no.3 is minor daughter of revisionist and the revisionist is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and his daughter in any circumstances. The learned court below after considering the submissions advanced by the parties and scrutinizing the materials on record had partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and had awarded maintenance @ Rs.2,000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party no.2, wife and Rs.2,000/- per month to opposite party no.3, minor daughter of the revisionist.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiralling inflation rate and high cost of living index, the maintenance awarded by the learned court below could not be treated to be on higher side. The learned court below has given a cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while passing the impugned order and the same are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous consideration or irrelevant materials. The revisionist has failed to point out any infirmity in the finding recorded by learned court below.
In view of the above, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the criminal revision preferred by the revisionist-husband is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021
S. Singh
