Allahabad High Court
Vikas Verma vs State Of U.P. And Another on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1622 of 2020
Revisionist :- Vikas Verma
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A,Ajendra Kumar
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri Abhishek Shukla, the learned A.G.A.-I for the State and Shri Ajendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. and perused the record.
This revision is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 08.07.2020 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj in Application/ Case No. 799 of 2018, moved on behalf of opposite party No. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Soron, District Kasganj, whereby the court below directed the revisinist to pay maintenance to her wife, i.e., opposite party No. 2 to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-per month from the date of application, i.e., 03.12.2018.
Submission made by the counsel for the revisionist is that the applicant is a very poor person having no source of income and he has been unable to pay Rs. 5000/- per month. He further submitted that the court below has not considered that the opposite party no.2 (wife) is living separately from the revisionist without any reasonable reason so she is not liable to get any maintenance from the revisionist. The court below, after recording the statements of the contesting parties, without considering the facts and evidence on record allowed the application of opposite party no.2 and awarded her Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance allowance.
Per contra, learned A.G.A.-I as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 have 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, 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 has not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs. 5000/- for the opposite party no. 2, 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 wives 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.
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.
Moreover, on 14.12.2020 this matter was referred for Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, who vide order dated 24.04.2022 informed that mediation has failed and parties do not arrive upon any agreement.
In view of the above, this revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Dismissed accordingly.
The court below is at liberty to recover the amount in accordance with law from the revisionist and be paid to the opposite party No. 2.
Order Date :- 12.5.2022
Mustaqeem.
