Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2784 of 2018 Revisionist :- Naushad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jay Babu Kesharwani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Aalok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision has been filed challenging the judgement and order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Kaushambi in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2018 (Naushad Vs. Stated of U.P. and another) under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2005) whereby the aforesaid criminal appeal preferred by the revisionist against the judgement and order dated 09.04.2018 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi in Complaint Case No. 3313 of 2017 (Noorsaba Begum Vs. Naushad and others) under Section 23 of the Act of 2005, P.S.-Kokhraj, District-Kaushambi, has been dismissed.
It is an undisputed position that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. Therefore, both legally and morally, the revisionist is bound to maintain his wife. On account of the failure on the part of the revisionist to maintain his wife, i.e., the opposite party no.2 herein, the proceedings under the Act of 2005 were initiated. Upon consideration of the material on record, the Magistrate by means of an order dated 09.04.2018 allowed the application filed by the opposite party no.2 in terms of Section 23 of the Act of 2005 and awarded maintenance @ Rs. 4000/- per month. This order dated 09.04.2018 was carried in appeal and the same was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist could not dislodge the findings recorded by the Magistrate or by the appellate court. He further submits that considering the fact that since the revisionist is an unemployed person, the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below does not commensurate with the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Court finds that the ground of maintenance awarded by the court below is fairly just and reasonable and is not liable to be interfered with on the submission urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist. The revisionist is legally and morally bound to maintain his wife. It is well settled that in the case of awarding maintenance, the personal hardship cannot be taken into consideration but it is the real hardship of a person, who seeks maintenance, which is to be taken into consideration.
For the reasons given herein above, no occasion arises before this Court to entertain the present criminal revision.
The present criminal revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.9.2018 YK