This court allowed the condonation of delay and dismissed the criminal revision petition filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., holding that the impugned order granting interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was free from illegality and jurisdictional error.
The revision petition was dismissed and the impugned order was affirmed.
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. - 13
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 168 of 2012
Revisionist :- Rakesh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- Anupam Dixit,Ajit Kumar,Amar Nath Rai,Ravi Shanker Gupta
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
(Application for condonation of delay)
There is a delay of 19 days in filing the revision.
None appeared for the revisionist.
Learned A.G.A. is present.
On due consideration to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the application is allowed.
Delay in filing the revision is allowed.
(Order on revision)
None appeared for the revisionist.
Learned A.G.A. is present.
The revision petition has been filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against order dated 3.1.2012, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Lakhimpur Kheri in Crl. Misc. Case No.52 of 2011, Geeta and others vs. Rakesh under section 125 Cr.P.C by which an interim maintenance application given by respondent no.2 has been allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs.1500/- per month interim maintenance to respondent no.2.
I have perused the record as well as impugned order dated 3.1.2012. The relevant part of the order dated 3.1.2012 is extracted below:-
"पपारररननी दपारपा ददिनपक ा 26-4-08 कको सससरत दकयपा गयपा हहै। दविपकनी कको न्यपायपालय दपारपा सम्मन पቚኔदषित दकयपा गयपा दविपकनी न्यपायपालय मम उपससरत आयपा उसकቚኔ दपारपा रलरखित आपरቈኌ ददिनपक ा 01-12-08 कको दिपारखिल ककी गयनी हहै तरपा ममौरखिक सपाቌኚय कቚኔ रूप मम पपारररननी गनीतपा मम सवियाሪ कको बतमौर पनी०डब्लल-1 कቚኔ रूप मम परनीदकत कर सपर बयपान अाሪदकत करपायपा गयपा हहै। पपारररननी दपारपा ददिनपक ा 22-6-11 कको अन्तररम भरण पकोषिण कपा पपाररनपा पत पसत त ु दकयपा गयपा हहै रजिसकቚኔ दविरु्ቍ दविपकनी दपारपा ककोई रलरखित आपरቈኌ नहीሻ पसत त ु ककी गयनी हहै मपात ममौरखिक रूप सቚኔ पपाररनपा पत कको उसकቚኔ दविदपान अरधिविकपा दपारपा दविरकोधि दकयपा गयपा हहै दपारपा पपाररनपा करन दकयपा गयपा हहै दक पपाररननी कቚኔ पपास आय कपा ककोई सपाधिन नहीሻ हहै जिबदक दविपकनी सपाधिन सम्प्ቐ व्यदक हहै। पपारररननी कቚኔ पपास मतुकदिमቚኔ आददि ककी पहैरविनी करनቚኔ हቚኔततु दविपकनी सቚኔ अन्तररम गतुजिपारपा भቈኌपा ददिलपायቚኔ जिपानቚኔ कपा अनतुरकोधि दकयपा गयपा हहै। दविपकनी दपारपा पसत त ु आपदत-पत मቚኔ करन दकयपा गयपा हहै दक पपारररननी सविቚኔच्छपाचपाररणनी सविभपावि ककी मदहलपा हहै विह अकपारण अपनቚኔ मपायकቚኔ मम रह रहनी हहै दविपकनी कቚኔ पपास ककोई सम्परቈኌ नहीሻ हहै यह मजिदिलर पቚኔशपा व्यदक हहै तरपा मजिदिलरनी भनी महनीनቚኔ मम आयቚኔ ददिन लगतनी हहै। इस तथ्य पर दविचपार सपाध्य आनቚኔ कቚኔ उपरपान्त हनी दकयपा जिपायቚኔगपा। पपारररननी ककी ससरत एविाሪ ककोररखितቚኔ हहए दविपकनी सቚኔ पपारቕኍ कको अन्तररम भरण -पकोषिण कቚኔ रूप मम कतुछ धिनरपादश ददिलपायपा जिपानपा न्यपायकोदचत पतनीत हकोतपा हहै सपार हनी सपार चपादि कपा अदतशनी्ቈ दनसतपारण दकयपा जिपानपा भनी आविश्यक हहै।"
A perusal of the order shows that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed on 28.4.2008. Summons were issued to the revisionist. He appeared in the court and filed an objection on 1.12.2008. The respondents Geeta also appeared and gave her statement as P.W.1 on 22.6.2011. Interim maintenance application was given by her against that no written objections were given by learned counsel for the revisionist. Only orally the prayer for interim maintenance was opposed. In the application the respondent no.2 Geeta has stated that she has no source of income. The revisionist is well off person. This
averment in the application for interim maintenance, given by respondent no.2, has been orally objected and denied by the revisionist.
On due consideration to the record as well as the impugned order dated 3.1.2012, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order impugned.
The revision is being devoid of merit, dismissed.
Office is directed to return the certified copies to learned counsel for the revisionist as per Rules of the Court.
Order Date :- 9.3.2022
Madhu
Digitally signed by MADHU KUMARI Date: 2022.03.15 09:59:06 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order granting interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. suffers from any illegality or jurisdictional error.
Whether the condonation of delay in filing the revision petition is permissible.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh
State Of U.P. And Ors.
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
