Allahabad High Court
Ramji Patel Alias Ramji Bind S/O ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 12
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 40 of 2022
Revisionist :- Ramji Patel Alias Ramji Bind S/O Matadeen
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Civil Sectt Lko And 2 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Manjeet Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
(In Re: Crl. Misc. Application No. 1 of 2022)
This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the revision.
As per the report of the Stamp Reporter this revision has been filed with a delay of 22 days. In this regard delay condonation application supported by an affidavit has been filed.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
Learned A.G.A. submits that the delay in filing the present revision may be condoned.
The reasons shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application appear to be justified.
The delay condonation application is allowed.
The delay in filing the revision is condoned.
(Order on memo of revision)
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.11.2021 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-II, Pratapgarh in Maintenance Case No. 428 of 2018, Manorma Devi Vs. Ramji Patel, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Patti, District Pratapgarh, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month as maintenance allowance to his wife-opposite party No. 2 and Rs. 1,500/- per month as maintenance allowance to the minor daughter-opposite party No. 3 from the date of application.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order passed by the court below suffers from surmises and conjectures and the same has been passed without considering the evidence on record. The revisionist is a labourer and is not able to give Rs. 4,500/- per month as maintenance allowance.
Learned A.G.A. submits that the court below has passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of the revisionist as well as of the opposite party no.2, in such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.
Learned counsel for the revisionist also could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below, which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The amount fixed for maintenance, which in the present days of high price rise cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance which has been wrongly denied by the revisionist. The fact that revisionist is the husband of opposite party no.2, has not been denied.
In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.
In view of the above, this revision lacks merit and stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.6.2022
Mustaqeem
