Sushma vs State of Up and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:146081

Court No. - 92

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 586 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sushma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Manju Lata Verma,Ram Sumer Chaudhary Counsel for Opposite Party :- Budhi Ram Gupta,G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶5

None is present on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision, even in the revised call of the cause list.

¶6

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State are present.

¶7

Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 submits that there is delay of 2651 days in filing the present criminal revision and no sufficient ground has been taken in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application for condoning the delay caused in filing the revision, moreover, no rejoinder affidavit has been filed to buttress the objection filed by the opposite party.

¶8

In this backdrop, this Court has occasion to proceed and examine the record in question, which reveals that the revisionist by way of present Criminal Revision is challenging the validity of judgement and order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi in Case No. 495 of 2008 (Sushma Devi vs. Jitendra Kumar Chaudhary), on the grounds that opposite party no. 2 is Principal in Government College i.e. Mahatma Gandhi Inter College , Jogiya, District Fatehpur and receiving a salary of almost rupees one lakh per month, therefore, it is legal, social and moral obligation of opposite party no. 2 to maintain them. Revisionist has also taken a ground that she is house wife and does not have any source of income and has also not been remarried and is living with two daughters. Apart from this, it is also one of the ground that opposite party no. 2 has filed divorce petition no. 749 of 2008 (Jitendra Kumar Chaudhary vs. Sushma Devi) before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi, which was decided ex-parte on 14.12.2009. On the basis of aforementioned grounds revisionist claim that the order impugned passed by the Principal Judge is illegal, arbitrary and without application of judicial mind and therefore, not sustainable in the eye of law, hence liable to be set aside.

¶9

Claim that has been set up by the revisionist in the present revision are that the Family Court erred in law while rejecting her claim for maintenance, without properly considering the significant salary of the opposite party no.

¶10

2, who, as a Government employee and Principal of Inter College, earns approximately one lakh rupees per month. As a housewife with no independent source of income and no remarriage, she asserts that she is entitled to maintenance for herself and her daughters. It is also claimed that the maintenance amount of Rs. 3,500 for two daughters is inadequate looking to the financial capacity of the opposite party and that the Family court's decision was arbitrary and unjust. Thus, she seeks a revision of the impugned order and appropriate relief.

¶11

Factual aspects of the matter warrants careful analysis of order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi and after careful perusal, I have no hesitation to say that learned Principal Judge has given a categorical finding therein that admittedly revisionist is duly wedded wife of opposite party no. 2 and due to matrimonial discord, revisionist filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi bearing Case No. 495 of 2008 (Sushma Devi vs. Jitendra Kumar Chaudhary) and after hearing both the parties, the Family Court vide order dated 16.09.2016, partly allowed the application filed under section 125 Cr.P.C. and given a categorical finding therein that both the daughters of applicant- revisionist herein are directed to be given Rs. 3500/- each as maintenance from the date of order and further rejected the claim in respect of revisionist and her elder daughter Priti Devi. It has also been categorically averred in the judgement and order impugned that revisionist is residing at the house of opposite party no. 2 and also cultivating his field and further it is also averred that opposite party no. 2 filed attested copy of order dated 01.03.2016, whereby, A.C.J.M-VI, Varanasi, awarded an interim maintenance of Rs. 5000/- in favour of revisionist. Order further reveals that elder daughter Priti Devi got married on 04.06.2010 and as per section 125 Cr.P.C. married major girl is not entitled to receive maintenance.

¶12

In view of the aforementioned factual aspect of the matter, I have no hesitation to say that learned Principal Judge has given a categorical finding, there is no illegality or perversity in the order impugned, I do not find any good ground/reason to record my concurrence contrary to the finding returned by the Principal Judge, Family Court, and therefore needs no interference in the revision.

¶13

At this belated stage, there is no sufficient ground to condone the delay, accordingly the delay condonation application is rejected. Consequently the present criminal revision is also dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 6.9.2024 Bhanu

¶15

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sushma v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Zarina Begum and Others vs Waqf Alal Aulad Thru. Mutawalli Mohd. Qazim Khan (Dec.) and Others

National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager vs Mithilesh Singh and Others

National Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow Thru. Regional Manager vs Ramrani and Others

Neha Alias Kahkasha vs the National Insurance Company Ltd.Unnao Throu Manager and Ors.

Roshanlal and Ors. vs Sitab Khan and Ors.

Abid vs State of Up and Another