Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2766 of 2018 Revisionist :- Mukesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State.
This is a revision from an order of the Judge, Family Court/ F.T.C. (Second), Firozabad, dated 15.05.2018 passed in Case no.450 of 2014, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Judge has awarded a maintenance in the sum of Rs.1500/- per month from the date of order to the wife.
The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the impugned order has been passed by the learned court below without application of mind. The objections filed by the revisionist have not been considered by the learned Judge, Family Court. It has also been argued that the revisionist has no source of income though it is also said that he works as a labourer. It has further been urged that the second opposite party has passed her Class XII and is doing some private job in NOIDA. It is not mentioned where she is employed and what is the remuneration that she receives.
A perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial court has carefully considered all evidence on record. It is not in issue that the revisionist and the second opposite party are husband and wife. The Trial Court has framed three specific issues in the impugned judgment, all relevant to the consideration of the claim for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Judge has answered each of the three issues relevant to the claim for maintenance against the husband, and, in the opinion, of the Court for good and valid reasons. Looking to the facts that the revisionist and opposite party no.2 are husband and wife, who are not living together, the sum of Rs.1500/- in maintenance awarded by the Trial Judge cannot be faulted. It does not suffer from any patent illegality or such material irregularity as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
This revision fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 Anoop/ Deepak