Allahabad High Court
Prince Yadav vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176220
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 117 of 2024
Revisionist :- Prince Yadav
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Satendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anshul Kumar Gupta,G.A.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. appearing for Opposite Party No.1.
2. The instant revision has been filed challenging therein the judgment and order dated 26.5.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Vaishali, District Ghaziabad in Maintenance Case No. 165 of 2018 (Smt. Reeta Vs. Prince Yadav) whereby, in exercise of power under Section 125 Cr.P.C., maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month had been awarded in favour of Opposite Party No. 2.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that the revisionist is earning some money out of the sale of the milk of the cow owned by him. The trial court had assessed the revisionist's income as Rs. 12,000/- per month and had awarded excessive maintenance of Rs. 4000/- per month in favour of Opposite Party No. 2.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and I find that the revisionist himself had admitted before the trial court that he owns a cow and is earning money out of the sale of the milk of the cow. The trial court on the basis of the admission of the revisionist that he owns a cow and is doing small business of sale of the milk, had assessed his income as Rs.12000/- per month.
5. This Court is of the view that the monthly income assessed by the trial court is absolutely minimum and further the maintenance awarded in favour of Opposite Party No. 2 is not excessive.
6. For ready reference, the finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned order dated 26.5.2023 is extracted as under:-
"?????????? ??. ?????, 1 ??????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??, ??-??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ????, ?????, ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ????, ????? ? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????????? ?? ????-???? ??? ?????? ????????? 2 ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ????-????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? 50 ???? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ????????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??, ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ??. ????. 1 ??????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???, ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?????????? ?? ?? ?? ???????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ???? 40 ???? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ???? 12,000/- ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?????????? ??????? ?? ????? ??, ????? ???-???? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????-????? ??????? ??? ??????? ?? ???????? ?? ?? 1/3 ??? ?????? ???? 4,000/- ????? ?????????? ?? ???????? ???-???? ?? ??? ??? ?????????-???? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ????????? ?????? ???? ???"
7. In view of the aforesaid categorical finding recorded by the trial court coupled with the fact that only meagre amount of maintenance of Rs. 4000/- had been awarded in favour of Opposite Party No. 2, no interference is called for by this court.
8. Accordingly, this revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.11.2024
n.u.
