BINA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Bina Devi, the revisionist, has preferred this revision against the judgement and order dated 06.12.2000 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 454 of 1999 (Ram Kumar Pathak v. State of U.P. and Ors.), thereby amending the order dated 18.08.1999 passed by the learned Magistrate for payment of maintenance w.e.f. 27.06.1995 is ordered to be paid w.e.f. 18.08.1999, while the Criminal Misc. Application aforesaid has been moved under Section 482 CrPC by Ram Kumar Pathak with the prayer against Bina Devi that the impugned order dated 18.08.1999 pertaining to award of maintenance passed by learned Magistrate as well as order dated 06.12.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge thereby enforcing the maintenance even from 18.08.1999 are liable to be quashed.

(2.) At the time of hearing of both the aforesaid Revision and the Criminal Misc. Application, no one appeared on behalf of Bina Devi, while learned Counsel for Ram Kumar Pathak as well as learned AGA on behalf of State of U.P. are present. The grievance of the revisionist Bina Devi in this revision remained that the impugned order dated 06.12.2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal because of overlooking the provisions in this regard contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby Section 125 CrPC provides that maintenance is to be paid from the date of the application if deemed fit and appropriate.

(3.) Learned Counsel for Ram Kumar Pathak submitted that not only the impugned order dated 06.12.2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge is erroneous, even providing the maintenance to be paid from the date of order, i.e. 18.08.1999 rather the order of learned Magistrate dated 18.08.1999 is also illegal in the eyes of law because the applicant for maintenance Bina Devi had left her five year old son with him despite the fact that he was unemployed and Bina Devi was knowing knitting and sewing. The learned Magistrate wrongly awarded the maintenance of Rs. 500/- per month in favour of Bina Devi against Ram Kumar Pathak. The Revisional Court not only wrongly upheld the award of the maintenance, rather enforced it even from 18.08.1999 erroneously.