Allahabad High Court
Sujeet Kumar Singh @ Manish vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 9 May, 2024
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35872
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 498 of 2024
Revisionist :- Sujeet Kumar Singh @ Manish
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Shri Prakash Pandey,Rakesh Kumar Mishra,Vijay Prakash Singh
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 order dated 5.3.2024, passed by Addl. Principal Judge, Room No.3, Family Court, Lucknow in Crl. Case No.1406 of 2015 Smt. Rekha Singh versus Sujeet Singh alias Manish under section 125 CrPC, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.8000/- per month to private respondent No.2 from 25.11.2015 to 29.1.2018 and Rs.9000/- from 6.3.2021 to the date of the judgment as also Rs.10,000/- per month from the date of the judgment, and perused the record.
2.Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order.
3.Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that an exorbitant amount has been fixed by the Family court ignoring the fact that the revisionist is unemployed.
4.A perusal of issue No.3 shows that the learned Family Court while deciding the said issue has considered written statement of the revisionist, however, it has given a finding that the revisionist has not disclosed name of his employer although, he has admitted that he is employed. He has also not produced his salary certificate, although, it is expected in terms of the judgment of Rajnesh versus Neha. The original copy of alleged termination letter has also not been filed and the letter has not been certified by the revisionist in his examination in chief nor he has stated as to which officer has issued this letter. The finding given by the learned Family Court on issue No.3 is extracted below :
" ???????? ??????? ?????? ??????-3
(13) ??? ???? ????????? ???? ?? ???? 14 ??? ?????????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? 35,000/- ????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?? 1,25,000/- ????? ??? ???? ?????????-1 ?????????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ????????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? 6000/- ????? ????? ??? ?? ?????????? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ??? ?? ? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???? 35 ? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ? ?????? ???????? ???
(14) ????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? (????? ??? ??? ???? 6000/- ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? 7200/- ????? ????? ??? ????? ??) ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???
(15) ??????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ???? 251/2 ?? ??????? ?????? 25?/13 ???????? ???? ???????? 09 ??? 2022 ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ? ?? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ?????????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???
(16) ??????? ?? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ???? 14 ?? ???????? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????????-2 ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???
(17)?????????? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? 40-50 ???? ????? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????????? ?? ???? ??? ????????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ???
(18) ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ?????????? ?? ??? ???? ????????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??? 35000/- ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? 1.25,000/- ????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? 35,000/- ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? 50,000/- ????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????????? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ???"
5.It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She is destitute and is unable to maintain herself. She has been subjected to cruelty relating to demand of dowry and that is why, she is residing with her parents.
6.On due consideration to the submission advanced, perusal of the record as also the order impugned, I find no illegality in the impugned order.
7.The revision being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Order Date :- 9.5.2024
kkb/
