Court No. - 76
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3546 of 2021 Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Rai Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Kumar Ankit Srivastava,Varun Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Heard Sri Kumar Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused material on record.
The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court , District Varanasi in case no. 693 of 2020 (Sarika and others Vs. Ajay Kumar) under section 125 Cr.P.C., registered at Police Station Mirjamurad, District Varanasi by which, interim maintenance awarded Rs. 5000/- to opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 3000/- to the opposite party no.3 and 4 respectively.
Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the revisionist was solemnized on 04.06.2009 with the opposite party no. 2 as per Hindu rites and ritual and two sons were born from their wedlock. The revisionist is doing a private job in a multinational company and was sent to abroad by the company since 2009 to 2013. After the death of father in the year 200, responsibility came on his shoulder to maintain his family and mother. Due to spike of Covid -19, company in which, revisionist was working, had been shutdown, therefore, he is fully dependent upon the pension of his mother. As his mother fell seriously ill since 2012, he is unable to move without support. Revisionist is not doing any job due to which his wife annoyed and went to her maternal place and did not come. Being aggrieved, an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the wife of the revisionist before the court below.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that on 18.11.2020, an adjournment application had been filed before the court below and the case was adjourned. The case was fixed for 18.01.2022 for filing objection. On the same day i.e. 18.11.2021 an ex-parte impugned order has been passed without there being any application for grant of interim maintenance without giving an opportunity to file objection against the application under section 125 Cr.P.C.
After considering the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I find that order impugned dated 18.11.2021 granting maintenance to the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 has been passed without giving any opportunity to file objection against the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as without any application for interim maintenance, therefore, impugned order dated 18.11.2021 granting interim maintenance to the opposite party nos. 2, 3 and 4 deserves to be quashed and the same is accordingly quashed.
In view of the above, the present criminal revision stands allowed.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 aks