Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 986 of 2004 Revisionist :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
List has been revised. None appeared on behalf of revisionist.
I have heard learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.
The criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16.01.2004 passed by Judge, Family Court, Agra in Case No. 20 of 1997 (Smt. Triveni Vs. Rajesh) in proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in which the Judge, Family Court, Agra has awarded maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month each to opposite party no. 2, 3 & 4 from the date of application i.e. 10.01.1997.
In the case of Santosh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that after admission of criminal revision, there is no procedure for dismissing the same in default and even if the revisionist is absent, the revision cannot be dismissed in default but it has to be decided on merit, so, this revision is decided according to its merit.
It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pravati Rani Sahoo vs. Bishnupada Sahoo (2002) 10 SCC 510 that in a revision against the order awarding maintenance by Magistrate under Section 125 Cr.P.C., revisional court has no power to reassess evidence and substitute its own findings. Under revisional jurisdiction, the questions whether the applicant is a married wife or divorcee, the children are legitimate or illegitimate being per-eminently questions of fact, cannot be reopened and the revisional court cannot substitute its own view.
After proper analysis of evidence available on record, lower court has passed the order dated 16.01.2004 against the revisionist, Rajesh, by which, revisionist, Rajesh, is directed to pay Rs. 500/- (each) per month as maintenance allowance to opposite party nos. 2, 3 & 4.
There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by lower court and finding is based on appraisal of evidence on record. So, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Consequently, revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Revision is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay order, if any, is vacated.
A copy of this order be transmitted to the lower court for compliance within one month.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Vibha Singh