SUNITA Vs. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri M. Aasif, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the opposite party no. 1.

(2.) The revisionist Sunita has filed this revision against the judgment and order dated 01.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Aligarh in Criminal Revision No. 162 of 2008-Lalit Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and Sunita, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has partly allowed the criminal revision and confirmed the judgment and order dated 07.02.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Aligatrh in Case No. 250/11/07-Sunita Vs. Lalit Prasad, with regard to the maintenance allowance of the daughter Rinkashu and directed that minor daughter Rinkashu will be entitled for the maintenance allowance of Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of judgment and order dated 07.02.2008 till she becomes major. This maintenance allowance shall be given on the 10th day of every Gregorian Calendar month. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 01.11.2012 has dismissed the maintenance allowance application of Smt. Sunita (wife). Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the revisionist Smt. Sunita has preferred this criminal revision.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that from the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is abundantly established that the revisionist is living separately from her husband opposite party no. 2. It is further submitted that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the revisionist before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Aligarh which was allowed vide order dated 07.02.2008 with the direction to opposite party no. 2 to pay Rs. 1500/- per month to her and Rs. 1500/- to her minor daughter Rinkashu. The said order was challenged by the husband opposite party no. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 162 of 2008, which has been partly allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 01.11.2012. It is further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed manifest error of law in passing the impugned order, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.