Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Raees vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 January, 2024
Author: Renu Agarwal
Bench: Renu Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:301
Court No. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1135 of 2016
Revisionist :- Mohd. Raees
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sandeep Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
1. Case called out.
2. There is no representation on behalf of the revisionist, however, learned AGA for the State is present.
3. Instant criminal revision under Section 397, 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.09.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2016 under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act by which the order of the Additional CJM dated 21.03.2016 has been confirmed and appeal has been dismissed.
4. Perused the instant revision and the entire material brought on record.
5. It transpires that the application for interim maintenance moved by the opposite party No. 2 has been allowed vide order dated 21.03.2016 by the learned A.C.J.M., Raebareli, granting interim maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month for maintenance and education of wife Sazida Bano and children of the revisionist. The said order dated 21.03.2016 was challenged by the revisionist by way of Appeal No. 25 of 2016 which was rejected and the order of the learned trial court was confirmed. Paragraph No. 7 of the revision discloses that the revisionist is a labour and it is not possible for him to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month, the learned trial court assumed that the earning of the revisionist is Rs. 20,000/- per month on the wrong factums, hence, it is prayed in the revision to set-aside the order of the trial court as well as the Appellate Court.
6. By way of instant revision, revisionist has challenged the quantum of interim maintenance, however, it is not denied that opposite party No. 2 is the legally wedded wife of revisionist having children. It is submitted by way of revision that the revisionist is a labour and he was earning a meager amount of Rs. 1500/- per month and he did not disclose his actual income or earning or mode of earning. From the judgment of the trial court dated 21.03.2016, the trial court found, on the basis of statement of opposite party No. 2, that the revisionist has agricultural land and he works for shuttering also and he has a business of Dairy, however, there is no documentary evidence to the said effect that the revisionist has agricultural land. The revisionist is admittedly a labourer and if he engaged in labour work also then his income cannot be less than Rs. 10,000/- per month as per the Minimum Wages Act.
7. Revisionist is admittedly the husband of opposite party No. 2 and he is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife as well as his children. It cannot be assumed from any angle that income of revisionist is Rs. 1500/- per month only. It is also pertinent to mention here that order passed by the trial court is for interim maintenance only which can be modified at the time of passing of the final judgment on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties during trial. The order passed by the trial court has already been confirmed by the appellate court and no evidence regarding the income is submitted by revisionist before the learned appellate court also, hence, there is no evidence on record of the income of the revisionist. It is the moral and legal duty of the revisionist to maintain his wife and children, there is no illegality, perversity or ambiguity in the order passed by the trial court which was confirmed by the appellate court, the revision has no force and liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, Revision is hereby dismissed.
9. Let the copy of the order be transmitted to the court concerned for necessary information and compliance.
(Renu Agarwal,J.)
Order Date :- 2.1.2024/Karan
