Allahabad High Court
Anees vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 16 May, 2024
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37802
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 530 of 2024
Revisionist :- Anees
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohammad Alam
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. In view of the proposed order being passed, notices to respondent Nos.2 to 4 are dispensed with.
3. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Lucknow in Case No.582 of 2019 whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 is allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that although he has given the affidavit in terms of the judgment of Supreme Court passed in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and others reported in [2021 (114) ACC 645 SC] still, the trial court recording the perverse finding has allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
5. Perused the record.
6. Perusal of the record shows that neither in the memo of revision nor in the affidavit filed in support of revision any pleading to the effect that he has filed any affidavit disclosing his actual income before the learned trial court. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are her minor daughters. The respondent No.2 is residing away since 15.03.2019 after she was ousted from her matrimonial home by the revisionist along with her two minor children. Physical and mental cruelty committed upon her due to demand of dowry. Since 2019 no effort appears to have been made by the revisionist to take the respondent Nos.2 to 4 back. These aspects have been considered as sufficient ground by the learned trial court for the respondent No.2 to reside away from the revisionist in which this Court finds no illegality.
It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2 is a destitute, unskilled woman and is not having any source of livelihood to maintain herself and her minor daughters.
Record further shows that while deciding the issue No.4 specific finding has been recorded by the learned trial court that repeatedly revisionist was directed to file an affidavit regarding his income in terms of the judgment of Supreme Court cited above however, the revisionist has not filed any affidavit regarding his income before the learned trial court thus, the actual income of the revisionist has been considered from the trial court considering the fact that revisionist is a healthy person and is in the business of milk, the application was allowed and interim maintenance has been awarded to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in which this Court finds no illegality or impropriety.
7. The revision being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.5.2024
Saurabh Yadav/-
