Crl. Misc. (Delay Condonation) Application No.1 of 2019 In Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 485 of 2019 Revisionist :- Lallan Opposite Party :- Kunti And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Pandey holding brief of Sri Arvind Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Irshad Hussain, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
As per report of the Stamp Reporter dated 10.06.2019, the present revision has been reported to be beyond time by 770 days.
The grounds mentioned for consideration of delay in para nos.6 to 9 of the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application appears to be sufficient, hence the delay in filing the revision is condoned.
Office is directed to allot regular number to the revision.
Order Date :- 12.6.2019 Anand Sri./-
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 485 of 2019 Revisionist :- Lallan Opposite Party :- Kunti And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Pandey holding brief of Sri Arvind Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Irshad Hussain, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
This revision has been filed with the prayer for quashing the judgement and order dated 31.01.2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kushinagar in Case No.1279 of 2015 (Kunti & another Vs. Lallan), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by which the learned court below has allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.1 from the date of application moved by the respondent no.1.
Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the revisionist is the husband of respondent no.1. There was some matrimonial dispute between the two on account of which the wife of the revisionist left her matrimonial home and thereafter she filed a case u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. The Principal Judge, Family Court, District Kushinagar allowed the application of respondent no.1 filed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and awarded maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.1 from the date of application. The revisionist is unable to pay such maintenance to respondent no.1. The court below completely ignored the financial status of the revisionist and in a very illegal and erroneous manner fixed the liability of payment upon the revisionist, hence the impugned order is liable to be set-aside by this Court.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing of the impugned order and submitted that the revisionist being the husband of the respondent no.1 is liable to pay the maintenance amount to his wife. The court below has rightly passed the order granting maintenance in favour of respondent no.1.
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 is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons, the same does not suffer from any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error, hence no interference is required by this Court. The prayer for setting aside the impugned order is refused.
This revision lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.6.2019 Anand Sri./-