Surendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. And Ors.
2023 Latest Caselaw 22762 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:55757
 
Court No. - 29
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 547 of 2017
 
Revisionist :- Surendra Pratap Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors.
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Praveen Chandra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

1. None responds for the revisionist. Shri Pramod Kumar Shukla, learned A.G.A. is present.

2. None responded for the revisionist on previous occasion when the matter was taken up for hearing. The revisionist has failed to even take steps for service of notice on respondent No.2.

3. This criminal revision has been filed on behalf of the revisionist- Surendra Pratap Singh challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2017 passed by Family Court/Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. (Newly Formed), Hardoi, Sultanpur in Petition No.1960 of 2014, 'Maya and others vs. Surendra Pratap Singh' under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Atrauli, District-Hardoi by which the opposite party No.2-Surendra Pratap Singh was ordered to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- as maintenance for his wife-Maya and an amount of Rs.1000/- each for minor daughters- Km. Jyoti and Km. Muskaan.

4. I perused the papers on record as well as the memo of revision to look for any of the grounds which might have been taken by the revisionist for assailing the order in question. From the submissions in the memo of revision, this position appears undisputed that the revisionist happens to be husband of respondent No.2 and father of respondent Nos.3 and 4. The grounds taken by the revisionist in nutshell are that the matter was settled between two sides on the basis of compromise and that he had divorced his wife and further that he has no regular source of earning and that he is not able to pay the amount of Rs.3500/- per month. On the other hand, his wife is educated and qualified lady earning by doing the job of teacher at a school in District-Hardoi as well as working as an agent in Sahara Private Limited.

5. I perused the impugned judgment as well as all the material available on record. It appears that both the sides examined themselves and their witnesses. The learned lower court went on systematically to take up each issue and evaluated the evidence produced by both the sides. The learned trial court considered the submissions as regard the panchayati settlement between the two and found that the original documents of the so called compromise could not be produced by the opposite party. The trial court further took into consideration the fact admitted by the husband that there has not been any legal divorce between him and his wife. The trial court thereafter went on to evaluate the evidence as regard the sources of earning. The trial court has, in my view, given cogent reasons for arriving at a conclusion that the revisionist is refusing and neglecting to maintain his wife and allowed the application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order.

6. This revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 22.8.2023

Raj