Dismissed

Smt. Rizwana and Another v. Saeed Ahmad and Another

Allahabad HC10 Mar 2022/255/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revision challenging the Family Court's rejection of a Section 125 Cr.P.C. application. The lower court found the applicant could maintain herself and was not the legally wedded wife, leading to the High Court finding no illegality in the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed and the impugned order of the Family Court was affirmed.

Smt. Rizwana and Another Vs Saeed Ahmad and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 13 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 255 of 2013 Revisionist :- Smt. Rizwana And Another Opposite Party :- Saeed Ahmad And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- R.K. Srivastava,Vinod Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶3

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

Under challenge is the order dated 14.03.2013 by which the application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. by the revisionists has been rejected by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad vide its order dated 14.03.2013 on the ground that earlier an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionists in which revisionist no. 1 could not prove her to be the legally wedded wife of respondent no. 1.

¶6

It was also held that she (revisionist no. 1) was capable of maintaining her and therefore, the second case filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned court below. This Court has also noted that the earlier case against the order dated 07.09.1995 a revision was filed bearing number 136/1995 which was also rejected vide order dated 29.12.1997 and in that case also she was not held to be legally wedded wife of respondent no. 1.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionists fairly submits that he has not assailed the revisional order dated 29.12.1997.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionists submits that suit for declaration was filed by revisionist no. 1, however, he is not able to apprise the Court about the current status of suit for declaration. This aspect of the matter has also been duly considered by the learned court below while rejecting the application. The operative part of the order dated 14.03.2013 is as under:-

¶9

;g Lohd`r rF; gS fd izkfFkZuh us Hkj.k iks"k.k gsrq foi{kh ds fo:) okn lafLFkr fd;k Fkk] tks xq.k&nks"k ij fu.khZr fd;k x;k vkSj mDRk okn esa fu.khZr fd;k x;k fd izkfFkZuh fnukWd 18-12-86 dks foi{kh ds lkFk fudkg gksuk izekf.kr ugha dj

¶10

¶11

ldh vkSj ;g Hkh fu.khZr fd;k x;k fd izkfFkZuh viuk Hkj.k&iks"k.k dj ikus esa l{ke gSA iqujh{k.k esa Hkh voj U;k;ky; dk vkns'k lEiq"V fd;k x;kA izkfFkZuh us flfoy U;k;ky; ds le{k foi{kh dh fookfgrk iRuh gksus ds lEcU/k esa ?kks"k.kkRed okn nkf[ky fd;k gSA ;fn mDr ?kks"k.kkRed okn vkKIr Hkh dj fn;k tk; rks Hkh izkfFkZuh dks Hkj.k&iks"k.k gsrq iwoZ esa ikfjr r`rh; vij eq[; U;kf;d eftLVsªV ds fu.kZ; fnukafdr 07-09-95 ds bl fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij Hkh izkfFkZuh viuk Hkj.k&iks"k.k djus eas l{ke gS] mls Hkj.k&iks"k.k dh /kujkf'k ugha fnyk;h tk ldrhA ,slh fLFkfr esa iwoZ esa Hkj.k&iks"k.k ds lEcU/k esa ikfjr fu.kZ; vfUre gks tkus ds i'pkr~ iqu% mUgha fcUnqvksa ij /kkjk&125 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr Hkj.k&iks"k.k gsrq izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= iks"k.kh; ugha gSA

¶12

izkfFkZuh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us izkFkZuk&i= 52 c bl vk'k; dk izLrqr fd;k fd izLrqr okn esa eq[; iz'u ;g gS fd D;k izkfFkZuh ua0 1 foi{kh dh iRuh gS rFkk izkfFkZuh ua0 2 mldh iq=h gSA bl lEcU/k esa izkfFkZuh ua0 1 us ewyokn la0 317@03 Jherh fjtokuk izfr lbZn bl U;k;ky; esa nkf[ky fd;k gS vkSj nhokuh okn dk gh QSlyk i{kdkjksa ds ifr&iRuh dh fLFkfr ij ck/;dkjh gksxkA ,slh fLFkfr esa nhokuh ds QSlys ds fuLrkj.k rd izLrqr okn dh dk;Zokgh LFkfxr dj fn;k tk;A

¶13

blds fo:) foi{kh us vkifRr 58 c nkf[ky fd;k gS vkSj O;Dr fd;k fd iwoZ esa /kkjk&125 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr okn xq.k&nks"k ij l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk fu.khZr fd;k x;k gSA blfy, izLrqr okn dks pyus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA

¶14

bl lEcU/k esa izkfFkZuh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk us Jherh yhykorh izfr ns'kjkt flag] 1988] ,0MCYkw0lh0]888 dk vkJ; fy;kA mDr fofu.kZ; ds vuqlkj ;fn /kkjk&125 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr izLrqr ekeys esa rFkk nhokuh okn esa ;g fu.khZr fd;k tkuk gS fd D;k izkfFkZuh] foi{kh dh oS/k fookfgrk iRuh gS] rks /kkjk&125 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh nhokuh U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; rd LFkfxr dh tk;sxhA

¶15

izkfFkZuh ds fo}ku vf/koDRkk us johUnz gfjHkko djekdZj izfr Jherh 'kSyk johUnz djekdZj] 1992 lh]vkj],y]ts] 1845 dk vkJ; fy;kA mDr fofu.kZ; ds vuqlkj ;fn i{kdkj ds oSokfgd fLFkfr ds lEcU/k esa Hkj.k&iks"k.k gsrq /kkjk&125 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZr okn yfEcr gks vkSj nhokuh U;k;ky; esa Hkh okn yfEcr gks rks /kkjk&125 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZRk okn nhokuh U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; rd LFkfxr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A

¶16

iwoZ esa /kkjk&125 na0iz0la0 ds vUrxZRk izLrqr okn esa izkfFkZuh dk foi{kh dh oS/k fookfgrk iRuh gksuk izekf.kr ugha gS rFkk izkfFkZuhx.k viuk Hkj.k&iks"k.k djus esa l{ke gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izLrqr okn viks"k.kh; gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA bls LFkfxr fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA

¶17

foi{kh }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= 6c Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk izkfFkZuh }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= 52c [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

¶18

¶19

vkn'ks

¶20

izkFkZuk&i= 6c Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS ,oa izkFkZuk&i= 52 c [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA

¶21

izLrqr okn iks"k.kh; us gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh nkf[ky vfHkys[kkxkj dh tk;A

¶22

In view of the above, having due consideration to the findings given by the learned court below, there appears to be no illegality and jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶23

Order Date :- 10.3.2022 R.C.

¶24

Digitally signed by RAM CHANDER YADAV Date: 2022.03.23 12:01:38 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Rizwana and Another v. Saeed Ahmad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rizwana and Another v. Saeed Ahmad 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Sandeep Srivastava @ Sandeep Kumar Srivastava Vs the State of Thru.Its Prin.Secy.Dept of Home and Another

Haseen Fatima Vs the State of U.P Thru Principal Secy. Home Lucknow and Anr.

Virendra Kumar and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Surya Bakash Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Thakur Prasad Vs the Additional Prin. Judge Family Court Lucknow and Another