Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2384 of 2018 Revisionist :- Pradeep Kumar Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Anand Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The present criminal revision under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 28th April, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.12, Kanpur Nagar, in Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2016 (Pradeep Kumar Yadav vs. Smt. Shashi Yadav), whereby the appellate court has dismissed the aforesaid appeal filed by the revisionist challenging the order dated 27th September, 2016 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 4125 of 2014 (Smt. Shashi Yadav vs. Pradeep Kumar Yadav & Others) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2005"), whereby the application under Section 23 of the Act, 2005 filed by the opposite party no.2 Smt. Shashi Yadav has been allowed.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits with vehemence that the amount of interim maintenance awarded by the Magistrate to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- to the opposite party no.2 and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the daughter of the revisionist is highly excessive.
Admittedly, the interim compensation has been awarded by the Magistrate, as affirmed by the appellate court, to the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and his own daughter. Therefore, the ground urged on behalf of the revisionist before this Court is wholly misconceived. Apart from the above, the Court finds that the case filed by the opposite party no.2 is still to be adjudicated on merits and the arrangements so made is interim and subject to the outcome of the final decision of the case pending before the trial court.
It is also an undisputed fact that opposite party no.2 continues to be the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and the daughter, namely, Tanvi was born out of the wedlock of the revisionist and opposite party no.2.
In view of the facts and circumstances, as noted herein above, no illegality was committed by the courts below in awarding the interim maintenance to the wife and the minor daughter of the revisionist. According to the Court, in these hard days, the amount so awarded by the courts below as interim maintenance is too meagre an amount for a woman to maintain herself and a minor children, who are none other than the legally wedded wife and the own daughter of opposite party no.2.
For all the reasons given herein above, the present criminal revision fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Sushil/-