Mohd. Naeem vs State Of U.P. And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3249 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 16
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 130 of 2018
 

 
Revisionist :- Mohd. Naeem
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sumit Kumar Srivastava,Vidhu Bhushan,Vinita Pandey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Atiya Abid,Mohammad Abid Ali
 

 
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. None appears for the revisionist, though learned A.G.A. is present for respondent-State.

3. Heard Ms. Atiya Abid, learned counsel representing respondent no. 2, as well as learned A.G.A., representing respondent no. 1-State, and gone through the entire record.

4. This criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed, impugning the order dated 17th January, 2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Pratapgarh in Case No.2274 of 2013 whereby after, considering facts, circumstances and evidence adduced in the case, the learned Principal Judge has awarded maintenance @ 3,000/- per month in favour of respondent no. 2, wife of the revisionist.

5. While awarding the said maintenance, the learned Principal Judge has considered the economic status/income of the revisionist as well as the other facts, including whether there was a reasonable cause for respondent no. 2 to live separately from her husband. The learned Principal Judge, in its well reasoned judgment, has awarded a meager amount of Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance. I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

6. Thus, this revision, being without any merit and substance, is hereby dismissed.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

[D.K. Singh, J.]

Order Date :- 9.3.2021

MVS/-