Vinod Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 9378 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 64
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1632 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Vinod Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ghan Shyam Dubey
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of this revision.

This revision has been filed to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.11.2021, passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Criminal Misc. Case No.107/2016 [C.N.R. No. UPGK 020009282016] (Smt. Priyanka & another vs. Vinod Kumar) and dismiss the application of the opposite party nos. 2 & 3 filed under Section - 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station - Shyam Deurwan, District - Gorakhpur.

Admitted position in this case would reveal that the opposite party no.2- Smt. Priyanka Devi, and opposite party no.3- Km. Priyanshi had time and again resided intermittently during the course of proceeding of this case, during which period, the revisionist -Vinod Kumar maintained his wife and daughter.

Now, to pass order of maintenance from the date of the application would be highly prejudicial to the revisionist and against the interest of justice. In this particular case, if for some time, as per assertion of the revisionist's wife, she herself time and again came to the revisionist and resided with him, then there is no point that the maintenance amount should be allowed to be paid to the opposite party nos.2 and 3, from the date of presentation of the application, whereas, it should be from the date of the order.

At this stage, learned A.G.A. intervened and submitted that insofar as the plea raised before this Court is concerned, the same was neither raised nor discussed or considered before the lower court concerned and unless and until that aspect is exhausted before the lower court by resorting to the provisions of Section - 127 Cr.P.C., it would not be feasible and convenient to consider that factual aspect straightway. This case being a criminal revision, only the propriety and the error apparent on record can be discussed and finding recorded.

I have perused the entire record and the order impugned dated 23.11.2021. Obviously, the revisionist without resorting to the provisions of Section - 127 Cr.P.C. has straightway rushed to this Court by preferring the instant revision before this Court, which was not proper under the prevailing facts and circumstances of the case, when the revisionist has grievance regarding the date from which the maintenance amount is to be paid.

In that regard, the revisionist is directed to approach the family court concerned and to move appropriate application within a period of three weeks from today and in case any such application under Section - 127 Cr.P.C. is moved, the same may be given due consideration after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

However, at this juncture, no observation is being made on the merits of this revision nor is the same being touched in its present form. However, it would be open to the revisionist, in case of any grievance to him, then he may again to approach this Court by resorting to appropriate legal remedy.

With the aforesaid observation, this criminal revision stands disposed of.

The observation made in this order shall not prejudice the lower court concerned, while considering the aspect of payment as agitated by the learned counsel for the revisionist.

Order Date :- 5.8.2022

S Rawat