Pappu @ Jagdeo vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3150 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 93
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1113 of 2016
 
Revisionist :- Pappu @ Jagdeo
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Onkar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Santosh Kumar Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

List has been revised.

None has appeared on behalf of the revisionist.

Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State is present.

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned judgement and order dated 28.01.2016 passed by Upper Pradhan Nayadish Parivar Nayalaya, Meerut in Case No. 163 of 2013 (Smt. Shalu Versus Pappu @ Jagdeo) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 2500/- per month from the date of application to the date of order and further directed to pay Rs. 4000/- per month from the date of order.

Learned A.G.A. submits that the court below passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and 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 gone through the judgment and order passed by the the court below and also perused the record. I have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned A.G.A.. Further no one appeared on behalf of revisionist to assist the Court pointing out any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the courts below.

The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs. 4000/- 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 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.

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, the revision lacks merit and stands dismissed.

Order Date :- 17.5.2022

Arvind