Upendra Singh Alias Bhupendra ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2626 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 91
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4677 of 2022
 

 
Revisionist :- Upendra Singh Alias Bhupendra Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sandeep Kumar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Onkar Nath Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

List revised.

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist for setting aside the judgment and order dated 11.10.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Case No. 981 of 2016, under Section 125 Cr.P.C, P.S. Ataraulia, District Azamgarh.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the maintenance fixed by the Court concerned is excessive and exorbitant. Revisionist is doing the agricultural work. He will not be in a position to pay such huge amount fixed by Court concerned as maintenance. Impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

On the other hand, learned AGA opposing the prayer submitted that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Maintenance fixed by Court concerned is a reasonable one.

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully.

In this matter, as is evident from the record, application under Section 125 CrPC has been allowed. Court concerned has fixed Rs. 2,000/- to opposite party no.2 and Rs. 4000/- to the opposite party no. 3 per month as maintenance. It is not in dispute that opposite no.2 is legally wedded wife of revisionist and opposite party no. 3 is his daughter. Object of grant of maintenance is to afford a subsistence allowance to the wife who is not able to maintain herself. It provides a speedy remedy for the supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife. Maintenance awarded to a wife is not a bounty. A wife is also entitled to live with the befitting standard of husband. Thus keeping in view the fact that it is the duty of a husband to maintain his wife, in my view, no good ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. The revision lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. The criminal revision is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 24.1.2023

safi