Court No. - 56
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1640 of 1990 Revisionist :- Suresh Chandra Goel Opposite Party :- Smt. Kusum Lalta & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- H.S. Nigam Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,Prakash Krishna
Hon'ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.
Case taken up. Even in the revised call, none is present for the revisionist.
The report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar dated 20.11.2014 reveals that revisionist Suresh Chandra Goel has left his village 25-30 years ago and he is not traceable, hence heard learned A.G.A. for the State.
This criminal revision was filed under Section 401 Cr.P.C. against order dated 18th May, 1990, passed by learned Xth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in Criminal Revision No. 18 of 1990; Kusum Lata and others Vs. Suresh Chandra Goel, arising out of order dated 22nd January, 1990, in Case No. 7/11 of 1989; Kusum Lata and others Versus Suresh Chandra Goel, on the grounds that Court failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 128 Cr.P.C.; the Court has no jurisdiction to enforce the conditional compromise in a proceeding under Section 128 Cr.P.C. in absence of finding that condition provided under the compromise has been violated by the revisionist; there was no evidence on record to show that there was wilful negligence on behalf of revisionist and in absence of wilful negligence, the opposite party No. 2 is not entitled to any maintenance.
The impugned order was with all reasons and details that a maintenance was awarded against husband-revisionist to the tune of Rs.500/- to his wife and Rs.300/ to his minor son, which was not paid. Hence, an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. was filed; under Section 128 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate was to see as to existence of any order for providing maintenance and defiance being made by the person against whom this order has been passed and if it is there the order is to be enforced by way of execution by Magistrate and both of these conditions were present in the case, hence the revision was allowed with a direction for ensuring the payment of above maintenance to wife and minor son.
There is no illegality, impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order, hence this revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 NS