Tabassum Bano v. Nesar Ahmad), by which
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:146072 Court No. - 92 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 667 of 2024 Revisionist :- Nesar Ahmad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Qaisar Kamal Ansari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Asthana Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. (Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2024) 1. Heard on delay condonation application.
Legal Reasoning
2. Shri Rajesh Kumar Asthana and learned AGA have no objection if the delay in filing the present Criminal Revision is condoned. 3. For the reasons stated in affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing Criminal Revision, the delay condonation application is allowed. The Criminal Revision is treated to have been filed well within time. (Order on Criminal Revision) 1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, Shri R.K. Asthana, leaned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the judgement and order dated 29.09.2023 passed in Case no. 661 of 2018 (Tabassum Bano vs. Nesar Ahmad), by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh has allowed application under section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4500/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the date of production of application and Rs. 1500/- per month to minor daughter (till she become major), as maintenance. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present criminal revision are that, opposite party no. 2, Tabassum Bano is duly wedded wife of revisionist, Nesar Ahmad. Due to matrimonial discord opposite party no. 2 left her matrimonial house and started living in her parental house. Thereafter, opposite party no. 2 had filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist on behalf of her and her minor daughter, on the premises that revisionist, who has sufficient means and legal, social and moral obligation to maintain them, has neglected them, as a result they are living separately from him. The petition was vehemently opposed by the revisionist on the ground that he has not neglected opposite party nos. 2 , rather it is opposite party no. 2, who has neglected his family members and is living separately from him in her parental house along with minor daughter. It was also the case of the revisionist that, he is always ready to keep opposite party no. 2 and his minor daughter in his house and maintain them, for which he had filed a suit for restitution of conjugal right bearing Case No. 732 of 2018 (Nesar Ahmad vs. Tabassum), but deliberately they are not living with him. It was also his case that opposite party no. 2 has sufficient means to maintain herself and their minor daughter. 4. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahar, on account of pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced in support thereof has proceeded to make a mention that opposite party no. 2, who is admittedly the wife of the revisionist and has minor daughter from their wedlock, has sufficient reason to live separately from the revisionist and that she is also unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter. The learned Principal Judge, Family Court has also made a mention in his order that revisionist being husband of opposite party no. 2 and father of a minor daughter and legally, socially and morally duty bound to maintain them and has also sufficient means for the same, is unnecessarily avoiding to maintain them. With these findings the learned Principal Judge, Family Court allowed the petition of opposite party no. 2 by the Judgement and order impugned and directed him to pay Rs. Rs. 4500/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the date of production of application and Rs. 1500/- per month to minor daughter (till she become major), as maintenance. Aggrieved with the same, this revision has been filed. 5. Leaned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the finding returned by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court that opposite party no. 2 has sufficient reason to live separately along with her minor daughter from the revisionist is contrary to the evidence on record and is therefore illegal and perverse. He further submitted that it were opposite party no. 2 who neglected the revisionist and was not living with him. He further submits that revisionist is ready and willing to keep them and he is also ready and willing to pay all the expenses, therefore, the order passed by the Principle Judge, Family Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6. Per contra, Shri R.K. Asthana, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that there is no illegality in the finding returned by learned Principal Judge, Family Court that opposite party no. 2 has sufficient and good reason for living separately from revisionist along with her minor daughter and that she is unable to maintain herself and her minor daughter, whereas revisionist, who is not only legally, socially and morally duty bound to maintain them but has also sufficient means for the same, is unnecessarily avoiding to pay the maintenance awarded by the Family Court. He further submitted that there being no illegality or perversity in the judgement and order of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, revision should be dismissed. 7. It is not disputed before this Court that opposite party no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and they have a minor girl from their wedlock. It is also not disputed that revisionist is unable to maintain them and have sufficient means of income. During the course of argument it was fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the opposite party no. 2 on behalf of herself and her minor daughter and the same was allowed by the Principal Judge, Family Court on 29.09.2023 without considering the the evidence adduced by the revisionist. 8. I have occasion to peruse the judgement and order dated 29.09.2023 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh and has no hesitation to say that learned Principal Judge has given a categorical finding therein that opposite party no. 2, who is duly wedded wife of the revisionist and the mother of a minor daughter, being forced, is living separately from the revisionist and has no sufficient means to maintain herself and her minor daughter, whereas revisionist has sufficient means to maintain them. Present criminal revision seems to have been filed with the sole intention to delay the proceedings and is nothing but a ploy of not paying the maintenance, which the Court had ordered. 9. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any reason to record my concurrence with the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist on the finding returned by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh that it is adverse to the pleadings and evidence, contrarily it is as per pleadings and evidence and therefore needs no interference in the revision.
Decision
10. In the result, revision is dismissed. Order Date :- 6.9.2024 Bhanu