Court No. - 1
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2312 of 2019 Revisionist :- Ankur Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinay Kumar Mishra,Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Irshad Hussain, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This revision has been filed with the prayer for quashing the judgement and order dated 08.03.2019 passed by Addl. Judge, Family Court/F.T.C., District Ballia in Misc. Case No.129 of 2017 (Rinki Yadav Vs. Ankur Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by which the learned court below has allowed the application of opposite party no.2 and awarded maintenance of Rs.11,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of order, i.e. 08.03.2019.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist is the husband of opposite party no.2. There was some matrimonial dispute between the two on account of which the wife of the revisionist left her matrimonial home and thereafter she filed a case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The Addl. Judge, Family Court/F.T.C. allowed the application of opposite party no.2 filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance of Rs.11,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 from the date of order, i.e. 08.03.2019. The revisionist is unable to pay such a huge maintenance to opposite party no.2. The court below completely ignored the financial status of the revisionist and in a very illegal and erroneous manner fixed the liability of payment upon the revisionist, hence the impugned order is liable to be set-aside by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order and submitted that the revisionist being the husband of the opposite party no.2 is liable to pay the maintenance amount to his wife. The court below has rightly passed the order granting maintenance in favour of opposite party no.2.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned order as well as the material brought on record, I am of the view that the impugned order is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons, the same does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, hence no interference is required by this Court. The prayer for setting aside the impugned order is refused.
This revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.6.2019
Anand Sri./-