Dismissed

Ramu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC20 Oct 2020CRLRD/674/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the criminal revision challenging an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revisionist, who did not participate in the lower court proceedings without explanation, failed to demonstrate any illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional error in the order granting maintenance to the wife and child.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed; the order dated 1.2.2020 granting maintenance remains unaltered.

Ramu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 674 of 2020

¶3

Revisionist :- Ramu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bharat Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Order on Delay Conodonation Application

¶6

Cause shown is good and sufficient.

¶7

Application is allowed.

¶8

Delay in filing the revision is condoned.

¶9

Order on Revision

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist.

¶11

The husband/revisionist by the instant petition is assailing the order dated 1.2.2020 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kasganj in CNR No. UPKR02000129-2014 application no. 140 of 2014 (Smt. Savitri Devi vs. Ramu) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Soron, District Kasganj.

¶12

The facts briefly giving rise to the instant revision is that the revisionist and opposite party no. 2 contracted marriage as per Hindu Rights in June 2000, from the wedlock a daughter was born, who is presently aged about 12 years. The opposite party no. 2 in May 2014 filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance. It was alleged in the petition that after marriage the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to harassment and torture for dowry; she was driven out of the matrimonial home in tattered clothes. She is semiliterate (class 7) and has no means of survival.

¶13

It is noted in the impugned order that the revisionist did not cooperate with the proceedings, despite summons being served upon him. The revisionist did not appear nor participated in the proceedings. On 28.9.2015 the right to file objection was closed, the court proceeded ex-parte and on 14.5.2016 an ex-parte order came to be passed. Thereafter, the revisionist appeared and filed an application to recall the ex-parte order. The application was allowed, thereafter, the revisionist filed objections to the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.. The revisionist has not denied the facts as alleged in the application filed by the opposite party no. 2. The stand taken by him is that his parents are dependent upon him, he has custody of his daughter and he has five bigha of agriculture land. Revisionist has no other means.

¶14

In this backdrop, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the quantum of maintenance awarded by the court below is on the higher side. Further, it is urged that the maintenance has been awarded from the date of application is against the settled principles of law.

¶15

I have perused the order impugned and the material placed on record.

¶16

It is noted in the impugned order that the applicant is able bodied person and is able to maintain himself and his family, merely taking a plea that he has no source of income and his parents are dependent upon him, would not suffice to exempt him from his liability towards his wife and child. The court below has further noted that no material or evidence was placed on record to substantiate that the applicant is not able bodied person and nor in a position to earn and maintain his family.

¶17

The next submission advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the award of maintenance should not have been granted from the date of application.

¶18

On specific query, he however, does not deny that despite notice and summons he has not participated in the proceedings and kept the proceedings pending without any reasonable explanation. Further during the pendency of the petition no interim maintenance was granted to the opposite party no. 2.

¶19

Learned counsel for the revisionist failed to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order.

¶20

The revision being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 20.10.2020 S.Prakash

¶22

Digitally signed by Justice Suneet Kumar Date: 2020.10.21 17:40:37 IST Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manveer Singh Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Gulshan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Reeshu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Tara Chand Jaiswal @ Badal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jagat Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others