Smt. Sharda And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1034 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 14
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 437 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Smt. Sharda And Another
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Pravin Kumar Verma,Vivek Kumar Verma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kr. Chaudhary
 

 
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Verma, learned counsel for revisionist, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

By means of this revision, the revisionist, who is wife of opposite party no. 2, has preferred this criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 05.04.0222 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Balrampur in Misc. Case No. M 85 of 2020 (Smt. Sharda and another Vs. Vidya Sagar) whereby opposite party no. 2 was directed to pay the maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to revisionist no. 1, who is wife of opposite party no. 1 and Rs.1,000/- per month to revisionist no. 2, who is minor son of opposite party no. 2 from the date of judgment.

Learned counsel for revisionists has submitted that the maintenance amount awarded to the revisionist is very meager. The revisionist and her minor son cannot survive in such a meager amount. Further submission is that the trial court erred in law in passing the impugned order dated 05.04.2022 from the date of order.

In support of his submission he has place reliance upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajenesh Vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 wherein Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that maintenance amount should be awarded from the date of presentation of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

In the present case, the trial court has awarded the maintenance amount from the date of order, which is bad in law.

Further submission is that revisionist no. 2 was awarded Rs.1,000/- as maintenance but it was also not disclosed in the impugned order that he should be granted maintenance amount till attaining the age of majority.

In view of the above, this revision is disposed of with a direction to the trial court concerned to pass afresh order in accordance with law from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him.

It is further directed the opposite party no. 2 to pay maintenance amount as awarded by the trial court.

Order Date :- 10.1.2023

Virendra