Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 217 of 2018 Revisionist :- Harendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Order on Delay Condonation Application.
Heard Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri A.R. Chaurasia, learned AGA for the State. As per report of the stamp reporter dated 16.3.2018, the present revision is beyond time by 143 days.
The grounds mentioned in the delay condonation application are found to be sufficient. The delay in filing the present revision is condoned.
The present delay condonation application stands allowed.
Office is directed to allot a regular number to the present revision.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 Neeraj
Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 217 of 2018 Revisionist :- Harendra Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rama Shankar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Order in the Memo of Revision.
Heard Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri A.R. Chaurasia, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
This revision has been filed with the prayer for quashing the order dated 25.7.2017 passed by Principal Judge Family Court (FTC), Court No.4, Bulandshahar in Criminal Case No.1009 of 2013, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. B.B. Nagar, District Bulandshahar.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage of the opposite party no.2 was solemnized with the revisionist in the year 1988 and from their wedlock three children were born. It is next contended that on 15.1.2013, the opposite party no.2 left her in-laws house and residing with her parental home without any reason. It is next contended that the Trial Court has wrongly passed the maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000/ per month from the date of order, hence, impugned order passed by the trial court be set-aside.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order.
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 does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, hence no interference is required by this Court. The prayer for quashing the impugned order is refused.
This revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019/Neeraj