NARESH RAIKWAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 as well as learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.-opposite party no.1 virtually and perused the material placed on record.

(2.) The present criminal revision has been preferred against judgement and order dtd. 26/8/2021 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in Case No.196 of 2019, C.N.R. No.UPJS02000827-2019, J.O. No.UP05939 (Smt. Neha Versus Naresh Raikwar) under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Babina, District Jhansi, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay maintenance allowance to opposite party no.2 to the tune of Rs.6,000.00 per month from the date of application i.e.10/4/2019.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that without taking the evidence of revisionist and without considering the case of revisionist, the trial court has granted the maintenance allowance to the opposite party no.2 from the date of application which is totally unjust, improper and illegal. The impugned order has been passed in a mechanical manner and no such judicial mind was applied while passing impugned order and nothing has been considered as evidence adduced by the revisionist, Naresh Raikwar, husband of opposite party no.2. The maintenance allowance awarded by the Additional Principal Judge is, too, excessive, illegal, arbitrary and against weight of evidence on record and the same may be set aside by this Court.