Dismissed

Anish v. State of U.P. and 2 Other

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2021CRLR/1294/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 1294 of 2021, Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed, J. dismissed the revision filed by a husband against a Family Court order awarding interim maintenance to his wife and daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C., finding no illegality or impropriety. The court held the awarded amount was not disproportionate given high prices.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed with the finding that it lacks merit.

Anish Vs State of U.P. and 2 Other — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 76

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1294 of 2021

¶3

Revisionist :- Anish Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Other Counsel for Revisionist :- Ajay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State through video conferencing and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal revision under Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the revisionist (husband) against the impugned judgement and order dated 17.2.2020 passed by Additional Family Judge Court No.01, Meerut in Criminal Misc. Case No. 705 of 2017,(Smt. Shamim and another Vs. Anish)), under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., Police Station Railway Road, District Meerut, whereby the application seeks interim maintenance has been allowed by the court below and awarded Rs.3000/- per month in favour of opposite party no.2 (wife) and Rs.2,000/per month in favour of opposite party no.3 (daughter) from the date of order.

¶7

Submission made by the counsel for the revisionist is that the revisionist is driver of battery rickshaw and he has been unable to pay Rs.5,000/- per months. He further submitted that the Court below has not considered that the opposite party no.2( wife) is living separately from the revisionist without any reasonable reason so she is not liable to take maintenance from the revisionist. After recording the statements of the contesting parties without considering the facts and evidence on record allow the application of opposite party no.2 and awarded maintenance to the opposite party no.2. The revisionist made several attempt to settle the dispute and also filed a case no.1538 of 2017 (Anis Vs. Smt. Shamim) under Section 281 of Muslim Act on 8.8.2017 but all in vain and he is still ready to keep her wife and she has also not co-operated. The opposite party no.2 always pressurized to the revisionist for living at Meerut and given the expenses to her parents, and when the revisionist has denied then she had given threat for implication in false case.

¶8

Per contra learned AGA has stated that the court below has passed the impugned order after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of the revisionist and opposite party no.2, in such circumstances to meet the ends of justice does not required any interference. There is no

¶9

illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.

¶10

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶11

Counsel for the revisionist has not been able to point out any such illegality or impropriety or incorrectness in the impugned order which may persuade this Court to interfere in the same. The amount fixed for maintenance was Rs. 3000/- for the wife and Rs. 2000/- for the daughter, which in the present days of high price rise cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate. The provisions of Section 125 of Cr.P.C are beneficial provisions which are enacted to stop the vagrancy of a destitute wife and provide some succour to them, who are entitled to get the maintenance which has been wrongly denied. The fact that the revisionist is the husband of respondent no.2 and the father of the respondent no.3 respectively, has not been denied.

¶12

In such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, does not require any interference. There is no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.

¶13

In view of the above, the revision lacks merit and stands dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 7.7.2021

¶15

SFH

Anish v. State of U.P. and 2 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anish v. State of U.P. and 2 Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Manoj @ Guddu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gayyur @ Chatu and 4 Other Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Priyanka Nagar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sushil Kumar @ Mantu and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Sarita and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another