Smt. Devki vs State Of U P
2023 Latest Caselaw 12778 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 93
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2006 of 1993
 
Revisionist :- Smt. Devki
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U P
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- R N Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- AGA
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. Case called out in the revised list. None responds for the revisionist and for the opposite party no. 2. Hence, heard Sri O.P. Mishra, learned AGA for the State and perused the papers on record.

2. By means of this criminal revision, the revisionist-Smt. Devki w/o Khajan Singh has challenged the order dated 08.11.1993 passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 285 of 1993, by which the order of payment of maintenance passed in favour of the instant revisionist on 14.06.1993 was set aside on an application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C..

3. The facts relevant are as below:-

The instant revisionist-Smt. Devki has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance; the same was allowed by the VIIIth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad by order dated 14.06.1993 directing her husband to pay Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance; the husband filed a revision which was decided by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad by order dated 08.11.1993 whereby the revisional court set aside the order of the magistrate holding that she has been earning at least Rs. 3,00/- per month and therefore, is not entitled for grant of any maintenance.

4. I went through the lower court record as well as both the judgments referred to above. The learned Sessions Judge, while passing the impugned order referred to the evidence given by both the sides in quite detail and found that there were enough of evidence viz copy of house tax and water tax of house no. 103 existing in the name of Smt. Devki. The learned revisional court also found that she was earning by keeping tenants in the house. It was noticed by the court that those facts were admitted by her in her testimony, therefore the learned magistrate was not justified in granting the amount of Rs. 250/- per month as maintenance.

5. I do not find any infirmity, impropriety or illegality in the impugned order. The order of the revisional court is based on substantive evidence which was ignored by the trial court. There is no good ground to interfere in the impugned order, therefore this criminal revision is dismissed.

Order Date :- 25.4.2023

#Vikram/-Vibha