AJAY CHATURVEDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. This criminal revision has been filed against order dated 17.4.2010 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Case No. 239/9 of 2005 by which the maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C. has been granted.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the wife was living separately from her husband without any sufficient cause therefore, she was not entitled for any maintenance. The Court below has come to the conclusion that there was no demand of Rs. one lac as additional dowry therefore, there was no justification for living separately from the husband. It has also been submitted that the learned Court below has not assigned any reason for grant of maintenance from the date of application. Therefore, the maintenance should have been awarded from the date of order. It has also been submitted that as per provisions of Section 125, Cr.P.C. the maintenance to wife and the children could not exceed Rs. 5000/- as a whole but in the present case the maintenance to opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 is Rs. 10,000/- which is in-violation of the provisions of law.

(3.) Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 has submitted that learned Court below has considered all the aspects of the matter and learned Court below was competent to grant maintenance from the date of application and no specific reasons were required to be mentioned. It has also been submitted that at present the salary of revisionist is around Rs. 42,000/- per month therefore, the maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- cannot be said to be excessive.