Ajay Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 16574 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ajay Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 10 May, 2024

Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar

Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:36113
 
Court No. - 15
 
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 506 of 2024
 
Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another
 
Counsel for Revisionist :- Suresh Sharma,Kafiya,Madhavendra Nath Misra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
 

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State.

Notices to respondent no. 2 are dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

By this revision, the revisionist has prayed for the following relief:-

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Village Court Laharpur, Sitapur in Criminal Miscellaneous Suit No. 86/2021, "Smt. Soniya Devi Anju Devi Vs. Ajay Kumar, U/S-125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Laharpur, District-Sitapur, in the interest of justice.

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the impugned order has been passed overlooking the vicarious condition of the revisionist as he is a MGNRGA labour and he could not pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month to respondent no. 2.

Perused the record.

Perusal of the record shows that three issues were framed by the learned court below. It is not disputed that respondent no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She is residing away from him for sufficient cause as a demand of Rs. 50,000/- as additional dowry was made by the revisionist which could not be paid by the father of respondent no. 2 and due to that she was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty and therefore, on this ground, she has been residing away. Learned lower court has also considered that the revisionist is a resourceful and educated person who is running a computer centre in the village and considering his income as well as agricultural land of his father, the revisionist has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month to respondent no. 2.

I find no illegality in the order impugned whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month to respondent no. 2.

The revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 10.5.2024

R.C.