Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 835 of 2020 Revisionist :- Krishan Murari Opposite Party :- State Of Up And 3 Other Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Mani Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mukesh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
In Re: Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application
This criminal revision has been filed with the delay of 664 days. Notice was issued on the delay condonation application but till date no counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. Learned A.G.A. has also not filed any counter affidavit. It seems that opposite parties are not interested in filing the counter affidavit.
The reasons shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application are sufficient. Accordingly, the delay of 664 days in filing the criminal revision is condoned and the delay condonation application is allowed.
Order on Criminal Revision
Heard Sri Sanjay Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist (husband) against the impugned judgement and order dated 13.09.2018 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kushi Nagar, in Case No.339 of 2016 (Vinita and another Vs. Krishan Murari) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., whereby the application seeks interim maintenance has been allowed by the court below and awarded Rs.3000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs.1000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.3 (son) from the date of filing of application.
Submission made by the counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is unable to pay Rs.4000/- per month. He further submitted that the Court below has not considered that the opposite party no.2 (wife) is living separately from the revisionist without any reasonable reason so she is not liable to take maintenance from the revisionist. After recording the statements of the contesting parties without considering the facts and evidence on record allowed the application of opposite party no.2 and awarded maintenance to the opposite party no.2. The revisionist made several attempt to settle the dispute and he is still ready to keep her wife but she has not co- operated. The opposite party no.2 always pressurized to the revisionist for living separately and when the revisionist has denied then she had given threat for implication in false case.
Per contra learned A.G.A. has stated that the court below has passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of the revisionist and opposite party no.2, in such circumstances to meet the ends of justice does not required any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs.3000/- for the wife and Rs.1000/- for the son, which in the present days of high price rise cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance which has been wrongly denied. The fact that the revisionist is the husband of respondent no.2 and the father of the respondent no.3 respectively, has not been denied.
In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.
In view of the above, the revision lacks merit and stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 pks