Smt. Kaneez vs State Of U.P. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 18468 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:146142
 
Court No. - 81
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1510 of 1993
 

 
Revisionist :- Smt. Kaneez
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- S.N.T. Abdi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.

Case called out in the revised list.

None is present to press this revision on behalf of revisionist.

Learned A.G.A for the State is present.

This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 19.08.1993 passed by XI Additional District Judge, Moradabad in Criminal Revision No. 471 of 1992 (Ali Manzar Vs. Smt. Kaneez Soghra and others) for setting aside the order of Second Munsif Magistrate, Amroha, dated 20.11.1992 in Criminal Case No. 325 of 1990, under Section 125 Cr.P.C (Smt. Kaneez Soghra Vs. Ali Manzar). Being aggrieved, the wife of the revisionist has preferred this revision.

The learned A.S.J. concluded that in spite of a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, the revisionist did not wish to go and live with her husband. Even after the decision of the case of Restitution of Conjugal Rights, the revisionist's wife did not comply with the said order. Hence, the learned lower revisional court concluded that the revisionist's wife was living separately without any sufficient cause, after decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights, the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C was moved without challenging the order of the decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights.

The learned Sessions Judge concluded that at this juncture the wife of the revisionist was not entitled for a maintenance. Though, it is also mentioned that the wife may file another petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

As per proviso of Section 125 Cr.P.C, if the husband offers to maintain his wife's condition of living with him and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider such refusal. As per clause (4) of Section 125 Cr.P.C, no wife is entitled to receive allowances of maintenance, if she is living separately without any sufficient reason. In this case instead of decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights against the wife she was not ready to live with her husband, therefore, she was not entitled to get the maintenance allowance for living separately without any sufficient cause.

On the basis of above discussion, this criminal revision having no force is liable to be dismissed.

O R D E R.

This criminal revision is dismissed. The judgment and order passed by the revisional court is affirmed.

Order Date :- 21.7.2023

Vinod.

[Umesh Chandra Sharma, J.]