Abhishek Bajpai vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 15537 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Abhishek Bajpai vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., ... on 3 May, 2024

Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar

Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34573
 

 
Court No. - 15
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 471 of 2024
 

 
Revisionist :- Abhishek Bajpai
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt., Lucknow And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shrawan Kumar,Chunnu Lal,Pankaj Kumar Sahu,Ramesh Kumar Srivastava,Shrawan Kumar Verma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
 

1.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State on this criminal revision filed against the order dated 7.3.2024 passed by Addl. Principal Judge, Family court, Court No.1, Lucknow in Crl. Case No.721 of 2013 Arti Mishra versus Abhishek Bajpai filed under section 125 CrPC whereby the Family Judge has awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.4000/- from the date of the judgment, and an amount of Rs.1000/- per month from the date of the application, i.e. 7.4.2014 till the date of judgment, and perused the record.

Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

2.Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the cost of Rs.25,000/- is exhorbitant and he is not able to pay it.

3.A perusal of the record shows that it is not in dispute that respondent No.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. The revisionist filed a divorce petition under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act which was dismissed. Against that, an appeal was filed. The revisionist has also filed an application under under Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act which he has not pressed.

The learned Family Judge on considering all this that firstly a divorce petition was filed and on its dismissal, appeal was filed and further the revisionist has not pressed his application for restitution of conjugal rights, has come to the conclusion that the revisionist himself does not want to reside with the private respondent. Thus, the private respondent has sufficient reason not to reside with the revisionist.

The learned Family Court further found that respondent No.2 is a destitute and is incapable to maintain herself and also that the revisionist is a person of adequate resources and has sufficient income including rental income from the house in Gomti Nagar and thus has come to the conclusion that he is capable to maintain respondent No.2. Further, the revisionist has not led any evidence to the effect that due to illness, he is unable to earn livelihood.

4.I find no illegality in the order impugned. The revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

Order Date :- 3.5.2024

kkb/