Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1286 of 2018 Revisionist :- Arun Kumar Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 5 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhaiya Ram Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Bhaiya Ram Maurya, learned counsel for the revisionist, and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 20.2.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Court No.20, Allahabad, dismissing the Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2017 (Arun Kumar Maurya Vs. Smt. Babita Kushwaha) arising out of the order dated 23.5.2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Room No. 6, Allahabad in Complaint Case No. 1905 of 2013 (Smt Babita Kushwaha Vs. Arun Kumar Maurya and others) under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, P.S. Karaili, District Allahabad, whereby the trial court apart from issuing other directions, has also directed the payment of interim maintenance to the opposite party No.2 at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month.
By means of the impugned order dated 23.5.2017, the opposite party No.2 has been awarded interim maintenance for herself and her minor son who is physically disabled at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. Feeling aggrieved by this order, husband Arun Kumar Maurya filed the appeal before the appellate court, which has been dismissed vide order dated 30.3.2018.
A perusal of the appellate order, will go to show that the appellate court has recorded a categorical finding that the revisionist appeared in the proceedings, he filed his written statement, but did not get himself examined as a witness. The father-in-law namely Shiv Poojan Maurya gave his testimony before the trial court, but did not file his written statement, even though he was impleaded as opposite party. Therefore, the testimony of Shiv Poojan Maurya was rightly been discarded by the trial court.
In this criminal revision it has been urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the property for which a direction has been issued to provide accommodation to the opposite party No. 2, does not belong to the revisionist. The argument is wholly misconceived as Shiv Poojan Maurya has not come up in criminal revision nor he has joined the present revisionist. It is further undisputed fact that the opposite party no. 2 is legal wedded wife of revisionist and therefore, revisionist is legally bound to maintain his wife and his minor son who is physically handicapped. In the memo of revision as many as seven grounds have been taken in challenge to the judgement and orders passed by the courts below. A perusal of the grounds taken in the present criminal revision clearly go to show that the same are wholly vague and do not entertain that any jurisdictional error was committed by the courts below. This being the legal position, the revision fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Arshad