Kuldip vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 184 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 69
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3407 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Kuldip
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Murat
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

Heard Sri Ram Murat, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.B. Maurya, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

The present revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist Kuldip with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present revision and set aside the judgment and order dated 04.07.2022 passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharanpur in Case No. 825 of 2016 (Mantlesh and others Vs. Kuldip) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal revision before this Hon'ble Court.

And/or to pass such other and further orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2022 the trial court has ordered the revisionist to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month each to his wife and his two children from the date of application i.e. 25.10.2016. It is argued that the same is illegal and incorrect and the direction should have been passed for payment of the said amount of maintenance from the date of order which is 04.07.2022. It is further argued that even otherwise the amount as directed to be paid is disproportionate to the income of the revisionist. There is no specific finding regarding the income of the revisionist. The amount is excessive. It is argued that as such deserves to be reduced. No other arguments has been placed before the Court.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the revisionist.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that in impugned judgment and order dated 04.07.2022 the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- each to his wife and his two children from the date of application i.e. 25.10.2016 and the same is in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha : 2021 (2) SCC 324. In so far as the quantum of amount is concerned, the Court has specifically dealt with the income of the revisionist while disposing of the issue no. 5 and has returned a finding regarding the income of the revisionist.

In these circumstances, looking to the facts of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below, the present revision is rejected.

Office to the communicate this order to the concerned trial court within two weeks from today.

Order Date :- 3.1.2023

M. ARIF

(Samit Gopal, J.)