Idu @ Gulam Mohammad vs State Of U.P. And Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 5790 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 15
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 762 of 2016
 
Revisionist :- Idu @ Gulam Mohammad
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Kewal Tripathi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

The instant criminal revision has been taken up for hearing.

Shri Ram Kewal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant has very fairly stated that he has no instructions from his client/revisionist for last six years.

However, keeping in view the fact that this matter pertains to the year 2016 and is quite old, it is proposed to be disposed of on the basis of the material available on record before this Court.

From a perusal of the record, it transpires that the instant criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 16.04.2016 passed in Case No.114/11/2011, whereby Principal Judge, Family Court, Shrawasti has awarded interim maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to the opposite party no.1/wife of revisionist and Rs.500/- each to the opposite party nos.3 and 4/minor daughters, namely, Kumari Afreen and Kumari Nasreen of the revisionist.

The grounds, on which, the impugned order dated 16.04.2016 has been assailed, are mainly that while passing the impugned order, the learned trial Court has committed manifest error of law. The learned trial Court has not taken notice of the fact that wife of the revisionist is living separately without just and reasonable cause. She is not in the conjugal relationship with the revisionist. The revisionist is a labourer, who is living with his children. The revisionist has no source of income, therefore, the order fastening responsibility of paying Rs.1000/- per month as interim maintenance to the wife of revisionist and Rs.500/- each to his minor daughters is against the weight of evidence and the same, therefore, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

From a perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that the impugned order is an interim maintenance whereby the monthly maintenance as aforesaid has been granted.

It is settled law that the husband cannot escape from the liability of maintenance of his wife, who has no means to maintain herself and to his minor daughters. The amount awarded by the impugned order is so meager that this Court does not find any reason to reduce the same any further. The impugned order has been passed after recording a specific finding to the effect that the opposite party no.2 is the wife of the revisionist and opposite party nos.3 and 4 are the minor daughters of revisionist. There is nothing on record to show anything to the contrary, therefore, no illegality or irregularity is found in the impugned order which any warrant any interference in the impugned order by this Court.

It is always open to the revisionist to place all such facts mentioned in the memo of revision before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Shrawasti for modification or discharge of the aforesaid order, if he is so advised.

The instant criminal revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Court concerned for its necessary compliance.

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.)

Order Date :- 4.7.2022/Mahesh