Civil Misc. (Delay Condonation) Application No.1 of 2019 In Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 482 of 2019 Revisionist :- Jayesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Avnish Tiwari holding brief of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant-revisionist, Sri Gaurav Prasad Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
As per report of the Stamp Reporter dated 07.06.2019, the present appeal has been reported to be beyond time by 339 days.
The grounds mentioned for consideration of delay in para nos.3 to 6 of the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application appears to be sufficient, hence the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Office is directed to allot regular number to the revision.
Order Date :- 11.6.2019
Anand Sri./-
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 482 of 2019 Revisionist :- Jayesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Avnish Tiwari holding brief of Sri Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Gaurav Prasad Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
The present revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 03.04.2018 passed by Family Judge/Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Court No.02, Jhansi in Claim Petition No.554 of 2011 (Smt. Urmila Vs. Jayesh Kumar) as well as Claim Petition No.189 of 2012 (Himanshi Vs. Jayesh Kumar) on the application moved by the opposite party nos.2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. awarding the maintenance in favour of opposite party nos.2 and 3 amounting a sum of Rs.3000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.2000/- per month to minor daughter, namely, Himanshi - opposite party no.3.
Learned counsel for the revisionist states that opposite party no.2 is living separately from the revisionist on her own sweet will with her minor daughter, i.e. opposite party no.3 and the interim maintenance has been granted to opposite party nos.2 and 3, which is per se illegal and is liable to be set aside.
I have perused the impugned order as well the other material brought on record, but I do not find that the impugned order suffers from any illegality or infirmity requiring any interference by this Court.
This revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.6.2019
Anand Sri./-