Court No. - 23 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 699 of 2003 Petitioner :- Devendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Ajit Kumar Singh Solanki Respondent Counsel :- Govt.Advocate,D. Raghav Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
The case is called out in the revised list. No one has appeared on behalf of
revisionist to press this revision. The learned AGA for the State and the
learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 are present.
The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has contended that the matter
is pending since 2003 and has not yet been admitted. It is further submitted
that very meagre amount has been allowed as maintenance to the opposite
party no.2 by the court below, who is the wife of the revisionist. Therefore
there is no useful purpose would be served to keep the matter pending, as
such, the present revision may be decided finally.
The learned AGA has not made any objection against the submission made by
the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
This revision has been preferred against the order dated 18.1.2003, passed by
Shri Aditya Kumar, Judge, Family Court, Moradabad, in Case No.276 of
2000/11, Smt. Rekha Vs. Devendra Singh, arising out of proceedings under
Sections 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the maintenance was allowed to the opposite
party no.2 as Rs.500/- per month from the date of the application.
Considering the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2 and after perusing the record, I am of the view that, it is
abundantly clear that the court below has dealt with all the issues raised
before it and has recorded findings of fact taking into account entire evidence
on record and also pros and cons of the case. This Court does not find any
illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court,
Moradabad who has granted maintenance to the opposite parties no.2 at the
rate of Rs. 500/- from the date of application. The maintenance granted by the
court below does not appear to be excessive in the hard days of soaring prices.
The findings recorded by the court below are based on appraisal of facts and
evidence led by the parties therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in
the findings of fact recorded by the court below in exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction under section 397 Cr.P.C.
In the result the revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. The order passed
by the court below is hereby affirmed. The court below is directed to proceed
with the case against the revisionist in accordance with law.
Office is directed to remit the record and communicate this order to the court
below for compliance and for taking appropriate steps in accordance with law.
The revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.7.2010
Mustaqeem.