Criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging maintenance orders under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Dismissed for lack of merit, specifically due to the petitioner's failure to deposit the interim maintenance amount and lack of proof to rebut the award.
Writ petition dismissed; order to transmit copy of dismissal order to relevant court transmitted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12647 of 2005
Petitioner :- Virendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Onkar Nath Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
1- None is present on behalf of the petitioner even in the revised list/call. Learned counsel for the respondent is also not present and the writ petition is being decided on merit in absence of learned counsel for both the parties.
2- Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
3- This criminal writ petition has been filed against the order dated 1.12.2004 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Etah in case no. 2362 of 2003 (Smt. Mamta and another vs. Virendra Singh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the application filed by Smt. Mamta Devi was allowed and Rs.700/- per month as maintenance was awarded and Rs.400/- per month as maintenance was awarded to her son from the date of application i.e. 26.6.2001. Against which, the petitioner filed revision no. 132 of 2003 which was partly allowed on 23.9.2005 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. no.13, Etah and in place of Rs.700/- per month, Rs.600/- per month as maintenance was awarded to the petitioner and Rs.400/- per month was awarded to her son from the date of application. Hence this writ petition.
4- From perusal of the record, it transpires that vide order dated 14.1.22005 was passed by this Court and the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.1000/- per month as interim maintenance allowance from the date of order. The money shall be deposited with the court below and the same shall be released to the respondent concerned forthwith.
5- From perusal of the record, it transpires that no evidence has been produced by the petitioner in compliance of the order dated 14.12.2005 and the said amount has not been deposited by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this very ground.
6- On the point of fact, both the courts below have given concurrent findings of fact, hence no interference is called for.
7- From perusal of the record, it also transpires that marriage between the parties was admitted. The burden lies upon the
petitioner to prove that his son was born out of wedlock of the petitioner.
8-The main plea was taken by the petitioner that his wife is doing the business of milk and she was able to maintain herself and her son, but this fact was not proved before the courts below. It is also appeared from the record that several attempts have been made for compromise, but no compromise had taken place in 'Panchayat'.
9-The petitioner is a healthy person and having agricultural land and doing the business of sale and purchase of goats.
10- In these circumstances, the maintenance awarded by the courts below is not excessive.
11- This Court finds no illegality, impropriety, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Hence dismissed.
12- Copy of this order be transmitted to the court concerned to proceed according to law.
Order Date :- 4.9.2018 OP
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can challenge the maintenance award on grounds not raised below and his failure to comply with the interim order.
Whether the maintenance awards of Rs.600 per month for the wife and Rs.400 per month for the son are excessive.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioner's income and marital relationship call for interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Virendra Singh
State of U.P. & Others
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
