Court No. - 46
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 397 of 2019 Revisionist :- Brij Bihari Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Mangla Prasad Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The instant revision has been preferred on behalf of the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kaushambi whereby the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. moved by the opposite party no.2 has been partly allowed in Case No.169 of 2017 (Nisha Pandey and another vs. Brij Bihari Pandey), Police Station Kokhraj District Kaushambi.
It is submitted by counsel for the revisionist that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. The opposite party no.2 performed marriage with revisionist on 8.2.2013 according to Hindu Custom and Rites. Out of their wedlock a girl child was born. The opposite party no.2 left her matrimonial house out of her own free volition. Thereafter she moved an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. on 13.6.2017 claiming maintenance for self as well as the minor baby. The revisionist filed objection on 6.11.2017 controverting the allegations made in the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C.. The court below passed an ex.parte order dated 26.11.2018 directing the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and Rs.4000/-per month to minor child from the date of moving the application under section 125 Cr.P.C.
i.e 13.6.2017. Learned court below relied upon the version of the opposite party no.2 by proceeding ex.parte which has culminated into grave injustice. The revisonist does not have sufficient source of income to comply with the order dated 26.11.2018 hence the order dated 26.11.2018 may be altered reducing the amount of maintenance.
Learned AGA opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist contending that there is no illegality or perversity in the order impugned.
From a perusal of the record it transpires that after filing of written statement the revisionist failed to appear before the court below which itself shows that the revisionist adopted the dilatory and stalling tactics so as to thwart the interest of the opposite party no.2 who is a polite and veiled lady thus the court below was constrained to proceed with the matter ex-parte granting maintenance to the wife and child for survival and existence.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submission made by the learned counsel for the revisionist, it emerges out that the revisionist has avoided to file application for the recall of the order dated 26.11.2018 and has directly approached before this Court with an oblique design of hammering the interest of the opposite parties no. 2 & 3.
In this view of the matter without delving into the merits of the case, this revision is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the revisionist to seek remedy before the appropriate forum. However, it is provided that the revisionist shall pay the amount of maintenance to the opposite parties no.2 & 3 on month to month basis pursuant to the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the court below till the order dated 26.11.2018 is modified or rescinded by any Court of Law.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 Rk