Allahabad High Court
Rakesh Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 2 May, 2024
Author: Renu Agarwal
Bench: Renu Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90087
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1483 of 2024
Revisionist :- Rakesh Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Inteshwar Nath Singh,Shashank Shekhar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Bhupendra Singh,G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 as well as learned AGA for the State.The present criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.3, Allahabad, in Maintenance Case No. 150 of 2012, Vidya Yadav v. Rakesh Yadav, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Utraon, District Allahabad, whereby learned court has directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to the Opposite Party No.2, as maintenace.
It is submitted that the behavior of the Opposite Party No.2 not good with the revisionist as well as entire family. After the marriage, opposite party no.2 went to her paternal house with her brother in the month of August 2009 and came back in December 2009. It is further submitted that she had illicit relationship with her brother-in-law. They tried to counsel her but all the efforts went in vain. Opposite Party no.2 also lodged FIR as Case Crime No. 573 of 2017, under Sections 147, 423, 504, 506, 452, 354, 379 IPC and investigating officer submitted final report on 31.05.2018. Learned Additional Principal Judge awarded a maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month, which is against the principle of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the order of trial court is in consonance with the provisions of law and the law laid down by the Supreme Court and a petty amount of Rs. 5,000/- was awarded from the date of application moved by the Opposite Party No.2.
I have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that he is ready to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of order, however, he is not in a position to pay the amount from the date of filing of the application.
From the perusal of record, it appears that applicant had not paid the amount towards the payment of maintenance of Opposite Party No.2 during the course of trial. No proof of any payment is found on record. Allegation of illicit relationship with her brother-in-law (Jija) against the Opposite Party No.2 is leveled, therefore there is reasonable ground to her to live separately.
It is well settled principle that the maintenance to destitute wife should be awarded from the date of filing of the application and if the maintenance is awarded from the date of order, specific reason should be mentioned in the order. There is no evidence on record to show that the revisionist has paid any amount towards the maintenance. There is no reason to specify that maintenance should be given to opposite party no.2 from the date of order.
Learned trial court has specifically mentioned that revisionist shall pay Rs. 5000/-per month from the date of filing of the application. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Family Court. Learned counsel for the revisionist failed to show any irregularity or illegality in the order. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
Revisionist is directed to pay the total arrears of maintenance in two equal installments and shall continue to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2, as directed by the family court.
With the aforesaid observation, revision is disposed of.
Order Date :- 2.5.2024
Akram
