Court No. - 72
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 758 of 2019 Revisionist :- Dr. Ravindra Kumar Gautam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava,Rajiv Sisodia Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionist is taken on record.
Certified copy of the order dated 27.10.2018 passed by the trial court has been filed by learned counsel for the revisionist along with the supplementary affidavit, therefore, defect is removed.
Vakalatnama filed by Kandarp Srivastava and Shri Kaustubh Srivastava, Advocates on behalf of O.P. No.2 is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Present revision under Section 397/401, Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 13.8.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.13, Meerut in Criminal Appeal No.178 of 2018, whereby the appeal filed by O.P. No.2 was dismissed and the order dated 27.10.2018 passed by trial court was affirmed allowing the application of the revisionist for recalling the earlier order dated 14.6.2013. Direction was also issued to the revisionist to deposit arrears of maintenance to the wife to the extent of 1/3rd within one month.
It reflects from the record that in a proceeding under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, an exparte order was passed on 14.6.2013, whereby the husband was directed to pay Rs.6,000/- to his wife-O.P. No.2 towards interim maintenance and Rs.3,000/- to his daughter. Against the said order recall application was filed, which was allowed vide order dated 27.10.2018 and the exparte order was set aside directing the parties to appear before the concerned court. Against that order an appeal was filed by O.P. No.2, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.8.2019 affirming the order dated 27.10.2018, whereby the exparte order was recalled.
The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the direction issued in the impugned order directing the revisionist to deposit 1/3rd of the maintenance amount pursuant to the exparte order dated 14.6.2013 is totally incorrect.
The revisionist is a hale and hearty person and is a doctor by profession. He is not paying the maintenance to his wife and his daughter since 2013 and the appellate authority has directed only to deposit 1/3rd of the said amount. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned directing the revisionist to pay 1/3rd amount of the maintenance granted vide order dated 14.6.2013.
The revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 30.9.2019 T. Sinha