This criminal revision challenged a Family Court order granting maintenance. The High Court found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The application was dismissed as it had no force.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46004
Court No. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 546 of 2017
Revisionist :- Rajiv Bajpai Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Raghunath Prasad Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,S.C. Misra
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
Matter is taken up. None appeared for the revisionist to press this revision.
From perusal of the record it transpires that stop order was passed on 25.08.2022 in spite of the stop order no one has put in appearance today.
The present revision is directed against the order dated 17.04.2017 passed by Family Court Hardoi in Petition No. 543 of 2014 under Section 125 Cr.P.C whereby maintenance to the tune of Rs. 1600 per month was granted to opposite party No.2.
From a perusal of record it transpires that the opposite party No.2 has filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C before the Family Court with the allegation that marriage of opposite party No.2 is solemnized by her parents with revisionist on 20.06.2004 and when she could not fulfill the demand of revisionist regarding dowry, she left the house of revisionist on 15.12.2008. It is also stated in the memo of revision that the revisionist was not married to opposite party No.2, therefore,
there is no chance of divorce before his marriage which was solemnized in the year 2005 with one Roli, Roli is the wife of the revisionist. It is also stated in the revision that the revisionist has no income. Learned trial court erred in holding that his income is Rs. 8000 per month. The income of revisionist is only 1800 per month which is insufficient to maintain his wife. Learned trial court erred in granting maintenance of Rs. 1600 from the date of order i.e. 17.04.2017 which is illegal and against the principal of natural justice.
From the perusal of impugned order, it is clear that the opposite party No2. produced two photographs of marriage. Learned Trial Court held that marriage between the revisionist and opposite party No. 2 was solemnized and she went 3-4 times to her matrimonial house and on the basis of photograph and the statement of witnesses, the court held that opposite party No.2 is the legally weeded wife of the revisionist. The trial court further held that the revisionist was working as driver and earning Rs. 8,000/- per months and also possess ancestral agricultural land, therefore, the learned trial court awarded meager maintenance amount of Rs. 1600 from the date of order.
From the perusal of record, this Court does not find any illegality, irregularity in the order of the trial court. The order has not been complied till date. Hence, in these circumstances
the revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed.
The revision is accordingly dismissed.
(Renu Agarwal,J.)
Order Date :- 14.7.2023 Nadeem
Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is any illegality, irregularity in the Family Court's order granting maintenance.
Rajiv Bajpai
State of U.P.
Renu Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
