Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2091 of 2021 Revisionist :- Sunil Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Nigam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Sri Shakti Niwas Prasad, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned judgement and order dated 03.09.2019 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 2, Bareilly in Criminal Case No. 115 of 2017 (Smt. Pinky Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh), under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by which opposite party no.2 was awarded Rs. 3000/-per month as maintenance allowance.
Submission made by the counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is a very poor person having no source of income and he has been unable to pay Rs. 3000/- per month. He further submitted that the court below has not considered that the opposite party no.2 (wife) is living separately from the revisionist without any reasonable reason so she is not liable to get any maintenance from the revisionist. The learned 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. 3000/- per month as maintenance allowance.
Per contra learned A.G.A. 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.
Counsel for the revisionist 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. 3000/- for the opposite party no. 2 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 revisionist 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.
In view of the above, the revision lacks merit and stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 SA