Court No. - 82
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 589 of 2019
Revisionist :- Rohit Panwar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Revisionist :- Sandeep Tripathi,Awadhesh Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Srivastava,J.
Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2019 Heard Sri Shishir Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sandeep Tripathi, learned counsel for the revisionist on the delay condonation application.
As per office report, it appears that this revision has been filed with the delay of 124 days.
In the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, it has been mentioned that the applicant-revisionist is a very poor person and was not in a position to arrange money for filing the present criminal revision and after arranging the same, he has preferred the present criminal revision against the impugned judgment and order dated 21.12.2018, passed by the Family Court, Baghpat, in Case No. 28 of 2016, whereby Rs. 5000/- per month was awarded to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) and Rs. 2000/- per month was awarded to the son of the revisionist as maintenance.
It is also clear from the impugned judgment that earlier the learned court below has awarded maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 (wife) to the tune of Rs. 5000/- in a petition filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, bearing Misc. Case No. 80 of 2016 and in the impugned order, the same has been directed to be adjusted. If calculated from that angle, the learned court below has awarded only Rs. 2000/- as maintenance in the said case. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it also appears that the revisionist himself has stated before the court below that he is educated upto intermediate standard and thereafter, he started farming work. He has 23 bighas of agricultural land on which he himself does farming work. He does not want to keep his wife with him at any cost. He has further stated that in two years, he earned Rs. 3,00,000/-, therefore, the learned court below has come to the conclusion that the revisionist is financially enough equipped to provide maintenance to his wife and son.
It is also pertinent to mention here that the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is very different and it has been incorporated in order to prevent the wife from destitution. In such situation, where the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been disposed of in the presence of the revisionist after full contest, the grounds mentioned in the delay condonation application, does not appear to be justified and appears to be based on mala- fide, and therefore, the same is liable to be rejected.
Accordingly the delay condonation application is rejected.
Order on Memo of Revision As the delay condonation application has been rejected by the order of the date, the present criminal revision is also dismissed as being time barred.
Order Date :- 25.7.2019 sailesh