Allahabad High Court
Ravindra Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 28 April, 2022
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Reserved on 24.03.2022
Delivered on 28.04.2022
Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 854 of 2016
Revisionist :- Ravindra Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Pratap Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. A perusal of the impugned order dated 12.07.2016 depicts that the revisionist has challenged the impugned order primarily on two grounds firstly learned court below has wrongly granted the maintenance from the date of application and secondly the financial condition of the revisionist is very poor.
2. A perusal of the record as well as impugned order shows that it is not disputed that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized with respondent no. 2 in the year 1997. He joined the services in CRPF in the year 2003 and he was terminated in the year 2006.
3. From the evidence adduced by respondent no. 2 before the learned court below, it has been proved that the revisionist has sufficient source of income and since she was beaten by the revisionist and thrown out of her matrimonial home therefore, it has rightly been held that she has been residing away for sufficient reasons. He is no interested in maintaining them.
4. It is also not in dispute that respondent no. 2 is an Anganwari Karyakartri and is getting Rs. 3000/- per month therefore, it has been rightly held by the court below that she is somehow capable to maintain herself but not her children and it is the responsibility of the revisionist to maintain his minor children.
5. It has also been averred that the revisionist has married with one Sushma and is living with her as husband and wife. No admissible evidence has been given by the revisionist before the trial court, therefore, it has rightly been concluded that respondent no. 2 is residing away from the revisionist for sufficient reasons.
6. The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed in the year 2009 and the revisionist did not appear on 16.04.2010 and since then was taking time for filing objections. Even after the evidence of the claimant/respondent was filed/led, the file was regularly listed for evidence of the revisionist. Thus, learned trial court has rightly held that deliberately the revisionist has delayed the trial and hence has rightly awarded maintenance to respondent no. 3 and 4 from the date of filing of the application. The relevant part of the judgment impugned is extracted below:-
पत्रावली के अवलोकन से स्पष्ट है कि इस मामले में विपक्षी 16-04-2010 में उपस्तिथ हो गया आैर उसके बाद आपित्त के लिए लगातार समय लेता रहा आैर 27-07-2010 में अपनी आपित्त प्रस्तुत की। वादिनी का साक्ष्य पूर्ण होने के बाद वाद में विपक्षी के साक्ष्य में पत्रावली लगती रही। अतः स्पष्ट है कि प्रस्तुत मामले के निस्तारण में विपक्षी द्वारा देरी की गयी है। अतः वाद दायर करने के दिनांक से गुजारा - भत्ता दिलाया जाना न्याययोचित है।
अतः प्रस्तुत मामले के तथ्यों एवं परिस्थिितयों को देखते हुए वादीगण का वाद आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है।
आदेश
वादीगण का वाद आंशिक रूप से स्वीकार किया जाता है। प्रतिवादी को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह प्राथर्ना पत्र दिये जाने के दिनांक 20-08-2009 से वादी संख्या - 2 अक्षांश एवं वादी संख्या - 3 मुस्कान के वयस्क होने तक प्रत्येक को गुजारा - भत्ता के रूप में तीन-तीन हजार रूपये प्रतिमाह प्रत्येक अंग्रेजी माह के प्रथम सप्ताह में अदा करेगा।
7. So far as the ground taken by the revisionist that he is very poor is concerned, from the evidence adduced by PW-1 and PW-2 it has been proved that the revisionist has sufficient source of income and therefore, the ground that he is very poor and is incapable of maintaining his minor children is misconceived.
8. Learned court below has rightly awarded the maintenance to minor children of the revisionist from the date of application for the reasons discussed above and also the decision of the learned court below to award the maintenance to the minor children of the revisionist from the date of filing of the applicant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is just and proper and is also in conformity with the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.
9. On due consideration to the judgment impugned as well as perusal of the record, I find no error or illegality in the order impugned. The revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to learned court below.
( Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.)
Order Date :- 28.04.2022
R.C.
