The High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by a husband against a Family Court order granting maintenance to his wife. The court found no illegality and upheld the trial court's finding regarding the husband's earning capacity.
Criminal revision stands dismissed; interim order, if any, stands vacated.
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. - 937 of 1999
Revisionist :- Sudhir Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- C.M. Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
1. List has been revised. None are present on behalf of the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 (Smt. Suman Lata) to argue the case.
2 . Heard Sri L.D. Rajbhar, learned A.G.A., for the State.
3. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 30.1.1999 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in case no. 181 of 1998 (Smt. Suman Lata Vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh), whereby the application of the opposite party no. 2 (Smt. Suman Lata) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., was allowed and revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 425/- as maintenance from the date of presentation of application before the court.
4 . Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Suman Lata was married with Sudhir Kumar Singh. After her marriage, she was harassed and subjected to cruelty by her husband. She was expelled from matrimonial home by her husband. Since then, she was living at her parental house. Opposite party No. 2 (Smt. Suman Lata) has no means of earning to maintain herself.
5. Revisionist (Sudhir Kumar Singh) admitted his marriage with opposite party No. 2 (Smt. Suman Lata) and stated that she voluntarily has left his house. He is a labourer and his earning at that time was Rs. 800/- per month.
6. Perused the impugned order.
7 . Learned Trial Court has held that opposite party no. 2 (Smt. Suman Lata) has no means for her maintenance. It was further held by the learned Trial Court that revisionist (Sudhir Kumar Singh) may have earning capacity of Rs. 1050/- per month from doing work of labour and agriculture. The finding of the learned Trial Court is supported by the evidence and as such, the same is not perverse.
8 . In view of above, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Judge, Family Court, Bareilly.
9 . Consequently, this criminal revision stands dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Jaswant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order passed by the Family Court directing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. suffers from any illegality.
Whether the finding of the trial court regarding the revisionist's earning capacity is perverse.
Whether the criminal revision filed against the maintenance order deserves to be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudhir Kumar Singh
State Of U.P.
Smt. Suman Lata
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
