Court No. - 64
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2197 of 2019 Revisionist :- Monu Goel Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Anr Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2018 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Bareilly in Complaint Case No. 569 of 2017 (Jyoti Vs. Monu Goel and others), under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Police Station Baradari, District as well as the order dated 6.5.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.16, Bareilly in Criminal Appeal No. 154/2018 (Monu Goel Vs. State of U.P. & another), under Section 29 of Domestic Violence Act 2005, whereby the complaint of opposite party no.2, under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act 2005, whereby the complaint of opposite party no.2 under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act has been allowed by awarding maintenace award of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of application.
Grievance is against order impugned dated 20.07.2018, passed by the court of first instance of the concerned Magistrate and the second order passed in the Criminal Appeal No. 154/2018 is by the appellate court of concerned Additional Session Judge, vide its order dated 6.5.2019, whereby the interim maintenance awarded under Section-
23 of Domestic Violence Act has been given to opposite party no.2, wife of the applicant, which is interim measure and is applicable during pendency of the proceeding under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. Learned counsel for the revisionist claims that in this case he is already facing proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C, which also relates to awarding of maintenance to opposite party no.2. Midway proceeding taken under Section-12 of the Domestic Violence Act is not justified. Consequently, the interim maintenace amount awarded to the tune of Rs.3,500/- is under circumstances excessive looking to fact that the applicant is a poor man and is a thela puller. Lastly, request was made for decreasing the amount, if the same is not to be quashed by this Court.
Also heard the learned A.G.A.
Learned A.G.A. has justified the order and has submitted that entirety of the case was considered by both the courts and a detailed order has been passed in that regard and the same need no interference by this Court.
Considered the submissions, obviously in this case, the claim raised by opposite party no.2 was rightly sustained by the court below and the applicant happens to be a young man of good physic it is no argument that the applicant is a poor man and is a thela puller. He is required to maintain his wife and to provide maintenance to her Rs.3,500/- cannot be said to be excessive amount, under facts and circumstances of the case. No interference is required.
Consequently, the instant criminal revision lacks merit and the same is dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.5.2019 S Rawat