Ajay Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 1477 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 91
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 304 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arun Kumar Vishvakarma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kharag Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

This criminal Revision is filed against the judgment and order dated 24.12.2021 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Mathura in case no.1210 of 2019 (Smt. Kamlesh vs Ajay Kumar) U/s 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Highway, District Mathura.

By the impugned order, the learned trial court has allowed the interim maintenance application of opposite party no.2 and has awarded Rs. 2500/- per-month as interim maintenance from the date of application.

The grounds of the Revision are that the impugned order has been passed arbitrarily and without appreciating the defence witnesses, in a mechanical manner. The opposite party no.2 has left her in-laws house without any sufficient reason. The learned court below has overlook the actual income of revisionist and has passed the order for payment of maintenance of an exorbitant amount for which the revisionist is not in a condition to pay the same. The learned court below failed to consider that the income of joint family cannot be admissible as the income of a particular person and has blindly relied upon the evidence produced by the opposite party no.2 It has ignored that fact that the actual income of revisionist is much low. The opposite party no.2 is qualified and capable to maintain herself in pursuance of her professional degrees, she is working as a tuition teacher and also do Kadhai and Bunai.

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that revisionist is a labour and he is unable to pay the monthly maintenance allowance of Rs. 2500/- per month and also the entire arrears in lump-sum.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that after considering the entire facts and material on record, the learned trial court has awarded interim maintenance of Rs.2500/- which is a reasonable amount and not excessive. There is no illegality in the impugned order.

The proceedings U/s 125 Cr.P.C. is pending which has been initiated on the application of opposite party no.2. In that proceeding, on the application of opposite party no.2, interim maintenance of Rs.2500/- has been awarded. The amount of interim maintenance cannot said to be excessive in the present situation. Even if revisionist is a labour, the amount of compensation cannot be said to be excessive. Revisionist, being the husband and is legally bound to maintain her wife. Provision has been made for interim maintenance to support the destitute lady. The learned trial court has narrated all the facts and material on record and has passed the reasoned order which does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

Accordingly, the Revision is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 26.4.2022

C. MANI