Criminal revision against Family Court order granting Rs. 1500/month maintenance to wife. Court dismissed revision as insufficient evidence proved husband's income of Rs. 20,000./month.
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. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1021 of 2015
Revisionist :- Smt. Rajni Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Noor Mohammad Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Sumod Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. None is present on behalf of revisionist and opposite party to argue the case.
Heard learned A.G.A. for State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 23.12.2014 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, J.P. Nagar in Case No. 96/2013 ( Smt. Rajani Vs. Guddu) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Gajraula, District J.P. Nagar, whereby application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of revisionist was allowed and opposite party no. 2 Guddu was directed to pay the maintenance of Rs. 1500/- per month to his wife Smt. Rajani.
Revision has been filed on the ground that Rs. 1500/- per month is not sufficient for maintenance of revisionist. The monthly income of opposite party no. 2 Guddu is about Rs. 20,000/-.
Perused the impugned order. Learned Family court held that opposite party no. 2 Guddu is a manual labour. Revisionist has not produced any evidence to show that income of opposite party no. 2 Guddu is Rs. 20,000/- per month.
In view of above, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by trial court.
Accordingly, instant criminal revision is dismissed .
Order Date :- 2.5.2018 Sharad/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the monthly maintenance awarded of Rs. 1500/- was sufficient given the alleged income of Rs. 20,000/- by the husband.
Whether there was legality in the trial court's order without evidence supporting the higher income claim.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Rajni
State Of U.P.
Guddu
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
