Court No. - 23
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 973 of 1998 Revisionist :- Farookh Opposite Party :- Smt. Varisa Counsel for Revisionist :- M.A.Qadeer
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri Bakhtyar Yusuf, learned Counsel for revisionist and learned AGA for State-respondents. No one is present on behalf of opposite parties.
It appears that applicant-opposite party filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for seeking maintenance in the Court of Family Judge, Meerut against opposite party-revisionist stating therein that she was married to opposite party-revisionist twelve years prior to institution of this case, out of their wed-lock two daughters were born but after the marriage, opposite party- revisionist neglected her and went to Delhi where he was running hotel and kept a lady as wife and both are living as husband and wife. Opposite party-revisionist is not maintaining her and her children. Income of opposite party-revisionist is said to be Rs.10,000/- per month.
Opposite party-revisionist filed objection on the application made by applicant-opposite parties stating that applicant was not living with him on her own will but admitted his marriage with her.
Vide its order dated 15.05.1998 passed by Family Judge, Meerut, application of applicant-opposite parties has been allowed and directed the opposite party-revisionist to pay Rs.300/- per month from the date of application i.e. 20.10.1994 till 22.01.1998 i.e. date of divorce and further directed to pay Rs.300/- per month during period of Iddat. He was further directed to pay Rs.300/- for her daughter from the date of application till attaining her majority.
Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, present revision has been filed.
Learned Counsel for revisionist submitted that order of Court below is perverse, bad in law and without proper appreciation of mind.
Learned AGA opposed the submission.
Admittedly applicant-opposite party is legally weded wife of opposite party-revisionist. Impugned order has been passed by the Court below, keeping in mind, income of opposite party- revisionist, amount of maintenance does not appears to be excessive.
Having heard learned Counsel for parties and perused the impugned judgement, I do not see any good ground so as to justify interference of this Court.
Revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 I.A.Siddiqui