Allahabad High Court
Popindra Kumar 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. - 1909 of 2019
Revisionist :- Popindra Kumar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sadhana Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Ms. Sadhana Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned judgement and order dated 12.02.2019 passed by Family Court/Fast Track Court No.1, Meerut in Criminal Case No. 122 of 2018, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Police Station Kakerkherha, Smt Ruchi Vs. Popindra Kumar by which opposite party no.2 was awarded Rs.5000/-per month as maintenance allowance from the date of filing of application dated 07.02.2018.
The fact that the revisionist is the husband of opposite party no.2(wife), has not been denied.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the opposite party no.2 (wife) has left the house of the revisionist on her own sweet will, therefore, Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. come in picture and she is not entitled for any interim maintenance.
Per contra learned A.G.A. stated that the court below passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of the revisionist and opposite party no.2(wife), 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.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is clear finding in the impugned judgment that the revisionist is a Government teacher and is earning Rs. 50,000/- per month, this fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs. 5000/- for the opposite party no.2(wife) which in the present days of high price rise cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate, but any how as the court below has awarded Rs. 5000/- and the opposite party no.2 has not filed any application for enchancement, it appears that she is satisfy with the said amount and she is able to maintain herself. 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. The fact that the revisionist is the husband of opposite party no.2, has not been denied.
From the perusal of the judgment it also appears that the in the year 2017 the revisionist tried to kill the opposite party no.2 (wife) and due to fear she left her in-laws house and the revisionist did not try to bring her back and she is living with her parents in the state of fear. As the argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist, Section 125 (4) Cr.P.C. will come in picture in favour of the revisionist, I do not consider this argument to be favourable, 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, the revision lacks merit and stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.5.2022
Arvind
