Court No. - 53
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 363 of 2011 Revisionist :- Sardar Mandeep Singh @ Guggu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Jamal Ali,Adil Jamal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,S.N. Pandey
Hon'ble Pratyush Kumar,J.
None responds for the parties even in the revised call.
The instant revision was admitted vide order dated 7.2.2011. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged. Perused the record.
The husband-revisionist by the instant revision questions the correctness of order dated 23.12.2010 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.166 of 2009, Smt. Kamalpreet Kaur @ Nimmi and another Vs. Sardar Mandeep Singh @ Guggu, under section 125, Cr.P.C. whereby the application was allowed and the present revisionist was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- and Rs.2,500/- p.m. respectively.
Grounds taken in the revision are that income of the revisionist could not be proved by O.P. No.2, maintenance has been awarded from the date of the application without recording any reason, amount of maintenance is excessive.
Perusal of the paper book indicates that O.P. No.2 was married with the revisionist on 5.9.2005. She gave birth to O.P. No.3, but she was harassed for dowry, tortured, thereafter on 23.3.2007 they were ousted from the house by the revisionist. Revisionist in his written statement admitted the relationship, but denied rest of the averments contained in the application. Before the trial Court O.P. No.2 examined herself and on behalf of the revisionist he was himself examined. The learned Principal Judge after appreciating the evidence and noticing the fact that a case under Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act was pending between the parties found that revisionist is income tax payee. O.P. Nos.2 & 3 were unable to maintain themselves. O.P. No.2 has reasonable cause to live separately. O.P. Nos.2 & 3 were not maintained by the revisionist. After considering the income of the revisionist he opined that he was earning Rs.30,000/- p.m., thereafter awarded the above noted amount.
After going through the paper book I find that it was the prerogative of the Principal Judge, Family Court whose evidence should be relied on. He preferred to rely on the evidence of O.P. Nos.2 & 3, regarding income before him copies of the income tax returns were filed, therefore, findings recorded by the trial Court are well substantiated from the record. Grounds taken in the revision are without substance. Reason has been given to grant the maintenance from the date of the application, therefore, revision is dismissed and interim order dated 7.2.2011 is, hereby, vacated.
Office is directed to send copy of this order to the court below for information and necessary action.
Order Date :- 18.4.2017 T. Sinha