Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Mohammad Ashraf Husan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 21111 ALL

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 21111 ALL
Judgement Date : 8 August, 2023

Allahabad High Court
Mohammad Ashraf Husan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 8 August, 2023
Bench: Jyotsna Sharma




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:52570
 
Court No. - 29
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1026 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Mohammad Ashraf Husan
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shiv Pal Singh,Ambrish Kumar,Ashish Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Manoj Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. None has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos.2 and 3, though name of Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate has been shown in the cause list.

2. To explore the possibility of amicable settlement between the two sides, the respondent no.2 was ordered to appear in person but none is present on her behalf. It appears that she is not inclined, hence I proceed to decide the matter on merits.

3. This revision has been filed by the revisionists challenging the order dated 31.08.2022 passed against the revisionist directing him to pay Rs.5000/- per month to respondent no.2 (his wife) and Rs.4000/- per month to respondent no.3 (his minor daughter) as interim maintenance.

4. It is contended on behalf of the revisionist that his wife left his matrimonial home without any good cause and she refused to return. The court concerned failed to consider the fact that he is already paying Rs.2000/- per month as maintenance to his wife under Section- 12 of Domestic Violence Act. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 is a qualified and educated lady, earning Rs.70,000/- per month as a teacher in a private school and by taking tuitions. The revisionist lodged an FIR against respondent no.2 and three others being Case Crime No.461 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 120-B IPC and Section 66-B & 66-C of IT Act, Police Station- Dargah Sharif, District- Bahraich, in which charge-sheet has been submitted against her and she has been summoned. This F.I.R. was lodged by the revisionist as his wife closed his source of earning by fabricating certain papers. As the revisionist has suffered loss on account of the act played by respondent no.2 and that therefore presently, he is unemployed having no source of income, hence the order of interim maintenance is liable to be set-aside.

5. In light of the submissions of revisionist, I went through the interim order of maintenance and the material available on record.

6. Following things emerge from perusal of the impugned order that both the sides in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, decided on 04.11.2020 in Criminal Appeal No.730 of 2020, produced their affidavits and the learned trial court on the basis of statements given on oath in their respective affidavits, adjudicated the relevant issues. The learned trial court found that the revisionist was carrying wholesale business of the medicine and therefore, he had adequate sources to earn money. This conclusion was drawn on the basis of affidavits. I do not find any illegality or perversity in that finding. The revisionist has not been able to show that how filing of FIR is going to give him any advantage.

7. As far as the fact of grant of maintenance of Rs.2000/- in a case of domestic violence is concerned, the learned trial court has clearly directed that the aforesaid amount shall be adjusted in the amount of interim maintenance.

8. There is no other point which needs to be looked into.

9. I am of the view that the impugned order has been passed in the light of the facts and circumstances as available on record at that time. Moreover, the provisions for interim maintenance has certain purpose to serve which cannot be lost sight of. At this stage, no meticulous evaluation of evidence need to be undertaken by the trial court. I do not find any impropriety, irregularity or invalidity in the impugned order and hence this criminal revision is dismissed.

Order Date :- 8.8.2023

Renu/-

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter