Smt. Arti and another v. Sanjay), by which
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:146069 Court No. - 92 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 797 of 2024 Revisionist :- Sanjay Opposite Party :- State Of Up Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. (Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2024) 1. Heard on delay condonation application. 2. Learned AGA has 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)
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist challenging the judgement and order dated 10.01.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Case no. 849 of 2022 (Smt. Arti and another vs. Sanjay), by which the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bulandshahar has allowed application under section 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 4000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the date of production of application and Rs. 3000/- per month to opposite party no. 3 from the date of his birth, as maintenance. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present criminal revision are that, opposite party no. 2, Smt. Arti is duly wedded wife of revisionist, Sanjay and opposite party no. 3, is his minor son. Due to matrimonial discord opposite party no. 2 is living in her parental house since 22.03.2022. Opposite party no. 2 had filed a petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revisionist on behalf of her and her minor son opposite party no. 3, 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 and 3, 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 son. It was also the case of the revisionist that, he is always ready to keep opposite party no. 2 and 3 in his house and maintain them, 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 son. 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 son from their wedlock, has sufficient reason to live separately from the revisionist and that she is also unable to maintain herself and her minor son. 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 opposite party no. 3 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. 4000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the date of production of application and Rs. 3000/- per month to opposite party no. 3 from the date of his birth, as maintenance. Aggrieved with the same, this revision has been filed. 5. It has been sought to be contended by the leaned counsel for the revisionist that finding returned by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court that opposite party no. 2 has sufficient reason to live separately along with her minor son from the revisionist is contrary to the evidence on record and is therefore illegal and perverse. It has also sought to be contended that it was opposite party no. 2 who neglected the revisionist and was not living with him, therefore, opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to claim maintenance from the revisionist for herself. 6. Per contra, learned AGA 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 son and that she is unable to maintain herself and her minor son, 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 maintain them. Learned AGA has 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 opposite party no. 3 is his minor son. It is also not disputed that revisionist has landed property 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 son and the same was allowed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, ex-parte on 10.01.2024. 8. I have occasion to peruse the judgement and order dated 10.01.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Bulandshahar 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 minor son, being forced, is living separately from the revisionist and has no sufficient means to maintain herself and her minor son, whereas revisionist has income from landed property and thus has the 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, Bulandshahar 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