Court No. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3628 of 2018 Revisionist :- Jai Prakash Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohd. Sarwar Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.
The revision has been filed against the impugned order dated 27.8.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur in Case No.115 of 2017, by which the application of revisionist under section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. read with section 5 of Limitation Act has been allowed subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as cost to be paid within one month from the date of order and setting aside the exparte order of maintenance dated 26.5.2017 passed in Criminal Case No.1030 of 2015, Smt. Bavita Vs. Jai Prakash, under section 125 Cr.P.C.
Heard Sri Mohd. Shahdab Khan, Advocate holding brief of Sri Mohd. Sarwar Khan, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contends that he is a labour at Mumbai and due to poor financial condition he is unable to make payment of costs imposed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur, which is excessive and beyond all proportions; that the amount of costs imposed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur, may kindly be reduced or in the alternative may be permitted to deposit in instalments.
Per contra, learned AGA supported the impugned order and pointed out that as per para 8 of the application under section 125 Cr.P.C., the opposite party no.2 has contended that the revisionist owns a house at Mumbai and is working in a private firm at a salary of Rs.45,000/- per month, apart from which he is also operating 14 auto rickshaws and obtaining an income of around Rs.30,000/- per month; that it has also been stated in the above para that the revisionist also has considerable agricultural land and appliances and has considerable agricultural income; that keeping in view the salary of revisionist and his earnings from operation of auto rickshaws and agricultural land, the cost imposed is neither excessive nor beyond all proportions, rather is nominal enough; that the cost imposed need not be reduced or may be permitted to deposit in instalments; that the revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed Upon hearing parties counsel and perusal of record, I find that the revisionist has not disclosed as to where he is working as labour and at which wages. In absence of any such specific averments, the contention raised by the revisionist may not be accepted. The impugned order has been passed allowing application of revisionist, which is in favour of revisionist himself and he claims to be aggrieved only with the imposition of cost. Considering the fact that the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was moved on 18.9.2015 and was allowed exparte vide order dated 26.5.2017, the application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C. along with under section 5 Limitation Act has been allowed and the imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/- only which amount of cost may not be considered to be excessive in any manner whatsoever.
In view of discussions made above, I have come to the conclusion that there is no illegality, irregularity, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order imposing cost. There is no sufficient ground for interfering with or for setting it aside the impugned order. The revision has got no force and is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is dismissed, accordingly.
Considering the fact that the period of one month from passing of the date of impugned order has expired on 27.9.2018, the revisionist is permitted to make payment of entire costs within 20.11.2018. The revisionist may also file written statement within the same period.
The Principal Judge, Family Court, is requested to dispose of three years old maintenance petition expeditiously in accordance with law and in case, the revisionist causes any deliberate delay in disposal of maintenance petition, the Principal Judge, Family Court shall be at liberty to consider the grant of interim maintenance, if any.
Order Date :- 27.10.2018 Tamang