Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging ex parte dismissal of his criminal revision against the trial court's maintenance order. It was held that revising the maintenance was unnecessary due to inflation and the petitioner was dismissed without costs.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
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. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9398 of 2009
Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh @ Raju Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Pachauri Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Rajnikant Pandey
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.04.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2007 as well as the order dated 09.02.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 3, Ghaziabad in case no. 315 of 2006.
Brief facts of the cases are that the respondent no. 2, who is wife of the petitioner, moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C against the petitioner praying for grant of maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- for herself and Rs. 3,000/for her minor son and expenses of Rs. 20,000/- as delivery charges of her son and Rs. 13,000/- towards litigation expenses and costs.
By the judgment and order dated 09.02.2007 the trial court allowed an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent no. 2 and Rs. 1,000/- per month to the respondent no. 4, her son towards the maintenance against the petitioner. Against the order dated 09.02.2007 passed by trial court, petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2007 before the Session Judge, Ghaziabad. The respondent no. 2 also preferred a Criminal Revision No. 122 of 2007 before the Session Judge, Ghaziabad for enhancement of the amount of maintenance. Both the Criminal Revisions were fixed for final argument on 22.04.2009. The petitioner could not appear and therefore the revision is alleged to have been dismissed by the ex-parte judgment and order dated 24.04.2009. However the Revision No. 122 of 2007 preferred by the respondent no. 2 was allowed and the amount of maintenance directed to be paid by the trial court under Section 125 Cr.P.C. from the date of order was modified and it was directed to be paid from the date of filing of the application.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2007 preferred by the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.
A perusal of the judgment of the revisional court shows that the revisionist, despite grant of repeated time for argument, had not appeared before the court below for advancing argument in his revision. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that he may be provided an opportunity of hearing by directing the revisional court to grant him opportunity of hearing. A perusal of the judgment of the trial court shows that it directed Rs. 3,000/- per month to be paid to the respondent no. 2, his wife and Rs. 1,000/- per month to be paid to his son who must be studying in higher class and requirements for his up bringing must have increased. The amount of Rs. 3,000/- for the wife of the petitioner and Rs. 1,000/- for the son of the petitioner is not in excessive amount by any stretch of imagination. Moreover, this amount was directed to be paid more than 10 years back and now on account of inflation the value of this amount has considerably decreased and therefore no useful purpose would be served by directing the revisional court to rehear revision of the petitioner.
In view of the above considerations, this writ petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.7.2018 Rohit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is entitled to an ex parte opportunity rehearing in his criminal revision regarding maintenance amount.
Whether the increased maintenance directed by the trial court was excessive or necessary in view of inflation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendra Singh @ Raju
State Of U.P.
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
