IRSHAD ALI Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision has been preferred against order dated 25.08.2020 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in criminal case no. 305 of 2012 (Filing no. 09200318962012) (Smt. Akhtari Begam Vs. Irshad Ali), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Anwala, District Bareilly, whereby revisionist Irshad Ali has been directed to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per months from the date of application to the date of order and to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of order to the opposite party no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for State. However, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 2 despite service of notice.

(3.) It has been argued by learned counsel for revisionist that impugned order is against facts and law and beyond jurisdiction and the amount of maintenance awarded by the court below is arbitrary and excessive. It has been submitted that the version of opposite party no.2 that she is married wife of revisionist or that on 07.05.1980 her marriage/nikah has been solemnized with revisionist according to Mahommedan rites and rituals, is false and baseless. At the time of alleged marriage, revisionist was a minor, aged about 14 years, and thus, he was not competent to enter into contract of marriage. The nikahnama filed by opposite party no.2 does not bear any signature of revisionist and that the said document is forged and fabricated. It was further argued that opposite party no.2 is not legally wedded wife of revisionist and thus, proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable at her behest and therefore, impugned order is against law. It was further submitted that court below did not get examine the signature, shown on alleged Nikahnama, from any expert, rather the court itself compared the signature shown on alleged Nikahnama with admitted signatures of revisionist and concluded that the signatures shown on alleged Nikahnama were of the revisionist. It was submitted that in said Nikahnama the caste of revisionist has been mentioned as ''Sheikh Mansoori' whereas revisionist belong to ''Saifi' caste, which also indicates that alleged Nikahnama is fabricated. Learned counsel submitted that the court below also failed to consider that in evidence of opposite party no.2, the date of Nikah was mentioned as 07.08.1980, whereas in Nikahnama date of nikah is mentioned as 09.08.1979 and that at that time the revisionist might not have been attained the age of puberty. Learned counsel submitted that in view of above stated facts and circumstances, the marriage/nikah of revisionist with opposite party no.2 is not established and thus, the impugned order is liable to set aside.