Allahabad High Court
Ashish Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 June, 2022
Bench: Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 66
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2160 of 2022
Revisionist :- Ashish Singh
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri K.P. Pathak, learned AGA for the State.
This is a revision purported to be u/s 397/401 Cr.P.C. filed by the revisionist-husband challenging the judgment and order dated 22.04.2022 passed by Additional Family Court, Court No. 2, District Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 548 of 2020 (Shipra Singh Vs. Ashish).
Learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that the marriage of the revisionist with the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized as per Hindu rites and rituals on 14.12.2012 in Sharma Guest House, Kanpur Nagar. As per the pleadings so set forth in the present revision in particular the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. it has come on record that an allegation has been sought to be leveled to the extent that dowry was being sought to be demanded which was resisted and beating was also administered to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) on 22.02.2016. An application seeking maintenance purported to be under section 125 Cr.P.C. has been preferred somewhere in the year 2020 claiming maintenance of Rs. 20,000/-. An interim maintenance application has also been preferred by the opposite party no. 2 by claiming interim maintenance by virtue of an application dated 04.12.2021 claiming interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. The court below by virtue of the order under challenged has accorded Rs. 7,000/- as interim maintenance. Learned counsel for the revisionist has thus sought to argue that the order passed by the court below according interim maintenance, is illegal besides being perverse and there was specific pleading of the revisionist that the revisionist is not in occupation of any profession and he is jobless. It has further been argued that there are no sufficient means available with the revisionist to provide interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 7,000/-. It has been further argued that the mental condition of the opposite party no. 2 (wife) is also not stable and her medical treatment is being undergone and thus, the condition of the payment of Rs. 7,000/- as interim maintenance is onerous as well as a condition which cannot be fulfilled by the revisionist thus, he seeks judicial intervention in this regard.
Countering the said submission, learned AGA has opposed the present revision while arguing that this Court may not exercised its revisional jurisdiction at a stage wherein interim maintenance is being sought to be accorded. According to the learned AGA, principally and essentially the purpose of granting interim maintenance is to provide certain breathing and respite till the final disposal of the proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C..
I have considered the arguments so raised by the respective parties and perused the record.
Undoubtedly, the marriage has been solemnized between opposite party no. 2 and the revisionist and further the fact that a specific allegation has been sought to be leveled that revisionist is working in Tata Leather International at Devash, M.P. and the fact as to whether he has the financial capacity to pay the maintenance or not is itself to be decided in the final proceedings. More so, the Amendment Act, 2001 introduced an express provision for granting interim maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and the power has been vested to the concerned court for making a monthly allowance towards maintenance during the pendency of the revision. The third proviso to section 125 Cr.P.C. (inserted vide 50 of 2021 with effect from 24.09.2021) provides that the processing of interim maintenance shall so far as possibly be disposed of within 60 days form the date of service. Even otherwise, this Court finds that in the proceeding purported to be under revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot act as an appellate authority that to particularly at the stage wherein the order which is being subject matter of challenge is an order of grant of interim maintenance. More so, this Court does not finds the present case to be a fit case wherein a different view may be taken from the view so taken by the court below.
Accordingly, present revision stands dismissed.
However, living it open to the revisionist to take all legal grounds in the pending application u/s 125 Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 3.6.2022
Nisha
