Allahabad High Court
Smt. Seema Yadav And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 May, 2022
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4259 of 2019
Revisionist :- Smt. Seema Yadav And Another
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ganesh Mani,Sugandha Yadav,Vinod Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anuruddh Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
List has been revised.
None has appeared on behalf of the revisionists to press this revision.
Heard Sri Anuruddh Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Vinod Kant, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Suresh Bahdur Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party no.1.
This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.09.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kushi Nagar arising out of maintenance case No. 230/2016 (Seema Yadav and another Vs. Rani Kant Yadav) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Jatha, District Kushinagar, whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of revisionist no.1 has been rejected by the court below.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submit that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order. The interim maintenance granted to the revisionist no.1 was rightly refused by the trial court as she is working on the post of "Gram Rozgar Sewak" and is earning huge salary. The revisionist is living in her parental house only with the intention to serve as "Gram Rozgar Sewak" since 2006. This fact has been concealed in the application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereas in the written statement the opposite party no.2 has clearly stated this fact and the court below after considering the evidence on record has rightly denied the interim maintenance to the revisionist no.1.
Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 further submit that after marriage the revisionist no.1 never performed her duties as wife, rather she started quarreling with the family members of the opposite party no.2, alleging that the house is not fit for her and the marriage has been performed forcibly against her wishes.The revisionist no.1 did not dispute this fact that she is working as "Gram Rozgar Sewak" since 2016 and she is earning Rs. 6000/- per month as salary. She also earned Rs. 15,000/- per month from tuition, therefore, the court below has rightly refused to grant her interim maintenance. She has sufficient means for her livelihood.
I have considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and also perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below.
The court below has categorically stated this fact that the revisionist no. 1 is working as "Gram Rozgar Sewak" and she is earning Rs. 6000/- per month and it was also mentioned in the order that the Block Development Officer has also given the certificate in this regard that the revisionist no.1 is working as Gram Rozgar Sewar (punchayat mitra) and this fact has been concealed by the revisionist while filing the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. The revisionist is living in her parental house only with the intention to serve as Gram Rozgar Sewak since 2006, therefore, the ground taken in the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is not justified and the application was rightly rejected by the court below.
I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, this revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.5.2022
Arvind
