SALEEM Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.4.2008 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut, in Case No. 68 of 2005 (Smt. Rahnuma and Ors. v/s. Saleem), wherein an application under Sec. 125 Code of Criminal Procedure has been partly allowed and the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 25,000/ - as expenses of litigation along with interim maintenance and Rs. 1500/ - per month as maintenance allowance as well as Rs. 750/ - per month each as maintenance allowance to Sadan till his age of maturity and Km. Anam till her marriage with effect from the date of order.

(2.) I have heard Shri Saghir Ahmad, learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for Respondent No. 1 and perused the record. None has appeared on behalf of Respondents No. 2 to 5 to oppose this revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the Respondent No. 2 has completely failed to either adduce any evidence or to prove it that the revisionist has any source of earning. Even then the learned court below in hyper technical manner has presumed the shop of general merchant of the revisionist's son as a shop of the revisionist only in order to pass such type of impugned order. The revisionist has nothing to do with the shop run by his son. The Respondent No. 2 has been earning sufficient money to maintain herself and her children. Moreover she has been depriving the revisionist of his valuable matrimonial rights. The court below should have made best effort to restore their matrimonial rights in view of Sec. 9 of the Family Courts Act, but no finding has been recorded to this effect that any effort for restitution of their rights has been made. It is further submitted that from perusal of the judgment and order in question it has been observed that both the parties are ready to live together, but the Respondent No. 2 wants to live with the revisionist subject to a condition that the revisionist must execute registered deed in respect of his half portion of house, while such condition itself is not sufficient cause in order to live separately or get maintenance and thus Rs. 25,000/ - granted a lumpsum amount as expenses of the case and interim maintenance as well as Rs. 1500/ -per month is excessive and penal and liable to be set aside.