Allahabad High Court
Pravesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 2 June, 2022
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2141 of 2022
Revisionist :- Pravesh Kumar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Munesh Kumar Upadhyay
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Munesh Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri P.K. Bharadwaj, learned AGA for the State.
This is a revision at the instance of the revisionist purported to be u/s 397/401 of the Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by learned Judicial Officer, Village Court, Patiyali, Kasganj in Misc. Case No. 180 of 2020 (CNR No. U.P.K.R.- 120000020020) (Smt. Girja Devi and Another vs. Pravesh Kumar) in proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist has challenged the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by learned Judicial Officer, Village Court, Patiyali, Kasganj in Misc. Case No. 180 of 2020 (Smt. Girja Devi and Another vs. Pravesh Kumar) in proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby maintenance has been accorded to the opposite party no. 2 (wife of the revisionist) to the tune of Rs. 2,000/- per month and Rs. 1,000/- to the opposite party no. 3 (minor son of the revisionist) from filing of the application dated 01.06.2018 till passing of the order dated 05.04.2022 and with effect from 05.04.2022 an amount of Rs. 6,000/- as maintenance bifurcation whereof being Rs. 4,000/- to the wife and Rs. 2,000/- to the minor son. He further argued that the findings so recorded by the court below while granting the maintenance so as mentioned in the order itself is perverse as admittedly there was no cogent materials available on record so as to suggest that the revisionist had so much source of income so as to give the maintenance to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Further contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is to the extent that so far as the issue relatable to grant of maintenance from the date of application is concerned, the same is preposterous because besides totally unjustified as in case it ought to have been given then the same could not have been given from the date of the passing of the order and not prior to it. Sri Upadhyay has further sought to contend that no case occasioned for grant of maintenance and the application so preferred u/s 125 Cr.P.C. ought to have been rejected at the very threshold without entering into the merits particularly when it is the wife who had deserted and left the house itself.
Countering the said submission Sri P.K. Bharadwaj, learned AGA has argued that a clear cut finding of fact has been recorded by the court below and even otherwise the court below after considering the judgment on the subject, has proceeded to pass an order which is in conformity with the four corner of law and it has also examined the fact that the minor son as well as the wife were entitled to be granted maintenance commensurate to the income of the revisionist. It has been further urged by Sri Bharadwaj that this Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction cannot travel beyond the scope and ambit and venture into actual aspect of the matter particularly when the view taken by the court below is plausible and this Court cannot supplement its own view disturbing the view so taken by the court below.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record and I find that so far as the issue with regard to the income of the revisionist is concerned, so as to give maintenance to the wife and the minor son, the court below while analyzing the facts in question and the law on the subject, has come to the conclusion that may be the revisionist happens to be a labour but even in fact he is in hale and hearty person and as per the affidavit so tendered by him he was/is ready to look after his wife and his son in case they live with him. More so this Court also finds that so far as the issue with regard to the grant of maintenance from the date of application is concerned the same is in conformity and consonance with the judgment in the case in Criminal Appeal No. 720/2020 (Rajnesh Vs. Neha) decided on 04.11.2020 and in particular the court below was quite oblivious of the fact that certain monetary liability would be fastened upon the shoulder of the revisionist and that is why, it only accorded maintenance of Rs. 3,000 to the wife and the son from the date of the application till passing of the order on 05.04.2022 and thereafter, enhanced the same to Rs. 6,000/-. In any view of the matter this court does not find any illegality and infirmity in the order under challenged, accordingly the present revision stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.6.2022
Nisha
