Allahabad High Court
Rustam 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. - 5 of 2018
Revisionist :- Rustam
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh,D.C. Dwivedi,Deepak Singh Patel,Nabi Ullah,Noor Saba Begum,Praveen Kumar Shukla,Shadab Ali,Umesh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A.Z.Khan,Ashfaq Ahmed Ansari,K.K.Dwivedi
Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist-husband against the impugned judgment and order dated 5.12.2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar by which application filed by opposite party nos.2 and 3, who were wife and minor son of revisionist was partly allowed and maintenance @ Rs.3,000/- per month had been granted in favour of opposite party no.2, wife and Rs.2,500/- per month had been granted in favour of opposite party no.3, minor son of the revisionist.
List has been revised.
No one is present on behalf of the revisionist to press this criminal revision. Learned A.G.A. for the State is present.
The opposite party nos.2 and 3 had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance against the revisionist. It was pleaded that the revisionist-husband is a Computer Engineer and had earned Rs.50,000/- per month, whereas the opposite party no.2, wife is a housemaker having no income. Revisionist was appeared before the Family Court and filed written statement/objection denying the factum of marriage. The learned Family Court while deciding issue No.1 had recorded the finding on the basis of evidence and materials, which are available on record to the effect that the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist and opposite party no.3 is son of the revisionist. Finding recorded by the court below is based on evidence and materials which are available on record and there is no illegality in any manner.
The opposite party no.2 is legal wedded wife of revisionist and opposite party no.3 is son of revisionist and the revisionist is morally bound to discharge his legal obligation of maintaining his wife and son in any circumstances. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Muzaffarnagar, 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.3,000/- per month to wife and Rs.2,500/- per month to minor son 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 family court 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
