Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1790 of 2019 Revisionist :- Sanjay Mourya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Revisionist :- Gopal Krishna Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Narendra Kumar
Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The present revision has been filed against the order dated 27.03.2019 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau in Case No. 1263 of 2014 (old case No. 902 of 2013) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Haldarpur, Mau.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the marriage of revisionist was solemnized with respondent no. 2 on 11.06.2002 and out of their wedlock, respondent nos.
3 and 4 were born. However, due to trivial issues, respondent no. 2 filed Case No. 1263 of 2014 (supra). The revisionist filed objection to the same with the averment that the revisionist is a daily wage worker and his parents, who are old, are alive and unable to move and the revisionist is the only son to maintain them. In the objection, it is also averred that the behaviour of respondent no. 2 was very rude and she left the house on her own after taking the ornaments, cash and other articles, therefore, she is not entitled to get any maintenance. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the court below without appreciating the evidence properly, allowed Case No. 1263 of 2014 (supra) and awarded maintenance of Rs.1000/- per month to respondent no. 2 and Rs.500/- each to respondent nos. 3 and 4. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 27.03.2019 is liable to be set aside.
Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposes the prayer of the revisionist and submits that respondent no. 2 was being victimized by the revisionist and she was ousted from her matrimonial home. Thereafter, she filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mau, which was registered as Case No. 126 of 2014 (Old No. 102 of 2013) and notice was issued to the revisionist and he filed objections. Learned A.G.A. further submits that revisionist has not disputed that respondent nos. 3 and 4 are his legitimate children. Learned A.G.A. vehemently submits that the court below after considering the contents of the application and objection as well as deposition made before it, rightly awarded maintenance of Rs.1000/- to respondent no. 2 and Rs.500/- each to respondent nos. 3 and 4, totalling Rs.2000/-. It is, thus, submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the court below and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and going through the impugned judgment and the pleadings of revision, it is undisputed that the respondent no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and respondent nos.
3 and 4 are his children and the meagre amount of Rs.2000/- has been awarded as maintenance by the court below for respondent nos. 2 to 4. In such circumstances, I find no illegality in the order.
The revision, accordingly, stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2021 VKS