Dismissed¶12

Mohd. Sajid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jan 2025/100/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance; Family Court Ayodhya; Criminal Revision No. 100 of 2025; order dated 18.12.2024; Shabana Khatoon vs. Mohd. Sajid; legally wedded wife residing away for sufficient cause; second marriage to Tarannum; three children from second wife; demand of dowry and cruelty; destitute wife incapable of maintaining herself and minor child; presumption of means from maintenance of second family; man of sufficient resources; maintenance of minor son confined till majority already stipulated; revision dismissed; Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:4959.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted to the revisionist; the quashing prayer was refused and the maintenance order was left intact. ¶12

Mohd. Sajid Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the revisionist; the quashing prayer was refused and the maintenance order was left intact.

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya awarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the revisionist's wife and minor son should be quashed. +1 more

¶6

Court's answer

This Court found no illegality in the impugned Family Court maintenance order; the revision being devoid of merit was dismissed.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

It is undisputed that respondent no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and respondent no.3 is his minor son.

¶9

Key takeaways

The wife is residing away from the revisionist for sufficient cause, because the revisionist has married one Tarannum and has three children from the second marriage, and because of the demand of dowry and cruelty committed upon her (styled respondent no.2 in the judgment's phrasing).ratio¶9
Learned counsel for the revisionist could not show anything from the record that adequate amount had been given for the maintenance of respondent nos. 2 and 3; respondent no.2 is destitute and incapable of maintaining herself as well as her minor child.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal revision seeking quashing of the order dated 18.12.2024 of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya (Case No.87 of 2013, Shabana Khatoon and another vs. Mohd. Sajid) awarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the revisionist's wife and minor son. Held by Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.: it is undisputed that respondent no.1 is the legally wedded wife and respondent no.3 the minor son; the wife lives apart for sufficient cause owing to the revisionist's second marriage to one Tarannum (with three children from the second wife) and the demand of dowry and cruelty committed upon her; counsel could not show from the record any adequate amount given for maintenance, and respondent no.2 is destitute and unable to maintain herself and her minor child; as the revisionist maintains his second wife and her three children, his capacity to maintain them may be presumed and he is a man of sufficient resources. Finding no illegality in the impugned order, the Court dismissed the revision as devoid of merit. On counsel's closing submission that the son's maintenance be confined to his minority, the Court noted the stipulation is already embodied in the impugned order and no fresh order was required. Notices to respondent nos. 2 and 3 were dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4959

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 100 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Mohd. Sajid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohsin Iqbal,Husain Askari,Syed Shabih Haider Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

The present revision has been filed by the revisionist for quashing of the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya in Case No.87 of 2013, Shabana Khatoon and another vs. Mohd. Sajid, under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for respondent State.

¶8

Notices to respondent nos. 2 and 3 are dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

¶9

It is not in dispute that respondent no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. Respondent no.3 is the minor son of the revisionist. The revisionist has married with one Tarannum. He has three children from his second wife, thus due to this reason and also due to demand of dowry and cruelty committed upon the respondent no.2, respondent no.2 is residing away for sufficient cause, from the revisionist.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist also could not show anything from the record that he has given adequate amount for the maintenance of respondent nos. 2 and 3. Respondent no.2 is the destitute and is incapable of maintaining herself as well as her minor child. Since, the revisionist is already maintaining his second wife and her three children, therefore, it may presumed that he is capable of maintaining his wife and his minor child from her. He is a man of sufficient resources.

¶11

In view of the above, I find no illegality in the order impugned.

¶12

The revision, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed .

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the maintenance so awarded by the learned trial court to the respondent no.3 may be confined till he attains his majority.

¶14

Needless to say that said stipulation is already given in the order impugned. There is no requirement of a fresh order.

¶15

Order Date :- 24.1.2025

¶16

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Sajid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Sajid v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Mohd. Sageer Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Kajal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shahnoor Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Ankit and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another