Court No. - 81
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2089 of 2021 Revisionist :- Vineet Rai @ Gaurav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rama Goel Bansal
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the revisionist, Smt. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 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 28.03.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No. 69 of 2017 (Vineet Rai Vs. Smt. Neha Bhandari), under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. as well as order dated 12.09.2016 in Case No. 66 of 2012 (Smt. Neha Bhandari Vs. Vineet Rai @ Gaurav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Jhansi passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi by which opposite party no. 2 was awarded Rs. 9000/-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. 9000/- 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. 9000/- per month as maintenance allowance.
Per contra, Smt. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State jointly submitted that the revisionist is doing business of silk yarn in a very large scale and his annual turnover is about to Rs. 10 to 25 crore per annum. They further submitted that the court below has rightly passed the impugned orders 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 orders do not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned orders 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 orders which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs. 9000/- 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 her, who is 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 orders do not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned orders and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.
In view of the above, the revision lacks merit and stands dismissed.
It is made clear that in case of default of payment of the maintenance amount as directed by the court below, the court below is at liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law for recovery of the said amount.
Order Date :- 22.9.2021 SA