Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14440 of 2021 Applicant :- Satyaveer Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Anurag Dubey
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.
This application has been filed by the applicant against the impugned judgement and order dated 14.4.2021 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court Mainpuri in Maintenance Case No.249 of 2017, (Smt. Poonam Yadav and another vs. Satyaveer Singh Yadav) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. P.S. Bhogaon District Mainpuri by which opposite party no.2 was awarded Rs. 4000/- per month and the minor son was awarded Rs.6000/- per month (total Rs.10,000/-) as maintenance allowance.
Submission made by the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is a very poor person having no source of income and he has been unable to pay the maintenance allowance awarded by the court below. He further submitted that the court below has not considered that the opposite party no.2 (wife) is living separately from the applicant without any reasonable reason so she is not liable to get any maintenance from the applicant. The court below, after recording the statements of the contesting parties, without considering the facts and evidence on record allowed the application of opposite party no.2 and awarded her Rs. 4000/- per month and Rs.6000/- to the minor son as maintenance allowance.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and Sri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 and 3 stated that the court below passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of the revisionist and opposite party no.2, in such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs.4000/- and Rs.6000/- to the wife and the minor son respectively which in the present days of high price rise cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance which has been wrongly denied. The fact that the applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2, has not been denied.
In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.
Accordingly, the application U/S 482 CrPC is dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.9.2021 SP