Dismissed

Vaibhav Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2023CRLR/5244/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging a maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. awarded against the revisionist. The court found no illegality in the order, noted the parties' willingness to settle, and dismissed the revision, affirming the lower court's decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and order affirmed; revision dismissed; interim order vacated.

Vaibhav Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5244 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Vaibhav Sharma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Krishna Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rama Shankar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶5

Case called out. Sri Ram Krishna Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. is present for the State.

¶6

Heard on revision finally at the prayer of both the parties and perused the record.

¶7

This revision has been preferred against the order dated 05.09.2019 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Fast Track Court, Court No. 4, Bulandshahar in Case No. 271 of 2017 (Meenu Sharma Vs. Vaibhav Sharma), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Narsena, District Bulandshahar whereby the opposite party no. 2 was granted maintenance for Rs.6,000/- per month from the date of order. Against revisionist aggrieved by this order revisionist filed the present revision with the prayer to set aside the aforesaid judgement and order dated 05.09.2019.

¶8

The present revision has been filed on the ground that the impugned order is illegal and improper which is not sustainable in the eye of law. The impugned order has been passed against the facts, evidence and other material available on record. The learned trial court passed the impugned order without applying judicial mind and it ignored the responsibility of the revisionist towards his family members.

¶9

Learned counsel for both the parties admitted that till date revisionist is the husband of opposite party no. 2 namely, Meenu Sharma. In the course of time the revisionist was not satisfied with the dowry given to him in the marriage. Revisionist and his parents demanded additional dowry in the form of an Scorpio Car. When opposite party no. 2 and her parent/ guardian could not oblige his demand they started beating her and committed cruelty upon her. So the opposite party no. 2 left her matrimonial house, as there was serious threat to her life there. Since, then she is living with her parents. Revisionist forcibly left her in Pyana Jungle stating that if she would not fetch his additional dowry demand, he would not keep her as wife, in the matrimonial home. In these circumstances, she is residing separately for sufficient cause.

¶10

Although, revisionist denied the allegations made against him, but he accepted that opposite party no. 2 is still his legally wedded wife and learned court below has rightly concluded on the basis of Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs. Meena, AIR 2014 Supreme Court 2875 that husband is under socio-legal obligation to maintain his wife. Revisionist is an able bodied person who is deemed to earn sufficient amount to fulfill the needs of his wife. Learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence about the economic earnings and socio-economic status of the parties and awarded the impugned amount of maintenance to the opposite party no. 2.

¶11

Learned counsel for revisionist could not point out any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgement and order. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties stated that they would not prosecute the present revision, because both the parties may arrive at some agreement and settlement out of court and resultantly, the revisionist wants to withdraw or not press the present revision and in view of the the above, legal

¶12

scenarios this may be dismissed as withdrawn on her part.

¶13

Thus, learned counsel for the revisionist could not point out any irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgement and order. Moreover, the revisonist do not want to prosecute the revision any more. The revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶14

Revision is dismissed accordingly. Impugned judgement and order is affirmed.

¶15

Interim order, if any, stand vacated.

¶16

Let a copy of the judgement be sent to the trial court for necessary compliance.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.2.2023

¶18

Israr

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vaibhav Sharma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Sharma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shokeen Vs State of U.P., through its Home Secretary U.P.

Indrajeet Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Devesh Shivhare Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bijuli Singh Vs State of U.P. and 17 Others

Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P.