Anurag vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 12764 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 86
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2386 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Anurag
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Mohan
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. The present criminal revision has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 05.05.2022, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri, in Case No.302 of 2016 (Rashmi Kumari & another Vs. Anurag), under section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kurawali, District Mainpuri, by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Mainpuri, allowed the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party no.2 and further directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,500/- per month to the opposite party no.3, from the date of application i.e. since 09.08.2016.

3. Notice to respondent no.2 are dispensed with.

4. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the revisionist that the respondent no.2 is the legally weeded wife and respondent no.3 is the son of the revisionist. Specific finding has been recorded by the learned trial court, while deciding issue no.2 that for justified reason the respondent nos.2 and 3 are residing away from the revisionist. So far as the income of the respondent no.2 is concerned, it has come from the evidence that she is not having sufficient sources of income to maintain herself and her son. So far as the income of the revisionist is concerned, the respondent no.2 has stated that he is employ to a private company, and earning Rs.30,000/- per months as salary. The father of the revisionist has 26 Bigha land of Sankarmani Bhumidhar, 4-5 shops and one house at Kasba Kurawali and a Junior High School, in the name of Kanaiya Junior High School at Kasbad Kurawali.

5. The facts that the revisionist was employ in a private company, has been admitted by him in his cross examination.

6. It is also admitted by the revisionist that he is a polytechnic diploma holder.

7. The Khatauni of the agriculture land in the name of the revisionist has also been produced before the trial court.

8. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly arrived at a conclusion that revisionist have sufficient sources of income and on due consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist, perusal of record, and also the impugned order passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the order impugned.

9. The revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 13.9.2022

VKG