Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3420 of 2018 Revisionist :- Waseem Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Om Narayan Dwivedi,Atul Kumar Srivastava,Devendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
Heard Sri Om Narayan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M.P. Singh Gaur, A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2018 passed by Additional Session Judge and Family Judge/FTC-2, Banda in Case No.280/IX/2016 (Smt. Sakra Khatoon and another vs. Wasim Ahmad) under sections 125 Cr.P.C, Police Station Kotwali City, District Banda whereby the court below has rejected the objection of the revisionist and allowed the application of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the amount which has been awarded by the court for maintenance of opposite party nos.2 and 3 is on the higher side because the revisionist who is a tempo driver, is earning hardly Rs.200/- per day.
Learned A.G.A. argued in support of the judgment stating that it does not suffer from any infirmity.
Perused the judgment passed by the court below dated 16.8.2018. By the said judgment, the trial court has allowed the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 whereby the opposite party no. 2 has been awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs.2500/- per month from the date of the application and the opposite party no. 3 who is minor son of opposite party no. 2 and also son of the applicant, has been awarded an amount of Rs.1500/- per month from the date of the application. In the body of the judgment, it has been recorded as per the averment of the opposite no. 2, the applicant used to earn Rs.800 to 900/- per day as a private driver.
The court does not find the said amount to be on the higher side because for survival of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 the amount which has been awarded as maintenance appears to be genuine and therefore does not find any infirmity in the judgment of the court below.
In view of the aforesaid, this revision is dismissed of without issuing any notice to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 at the admission stage itself.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 AU