UMA PATI TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. This revision has been filed by Uma Pati Tiwari, the revisionist against an order dated 16-5-2006 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in Case No. 136 of 2003, Smt. Uma Devi v. Ram Chandra Tripathi. By the aforesaid impugned order dated 16-5-2006 the Additional Principal Judge, Allahabad has rejected the prayer of the revisionist for release of trolley and had directed it to be sold and the sale proceed be given to the wife as reimbursement of her maintenance allowance. The Principal Judge has further held that the Court can adopt any procedure to implement its order.

(2.) THE facts of the case were that respondent No. 2 Smt. Uma Devi is the daughter-in-law of the revisionist Uma Pati Tiwari being wife of his son Ram Chandra Tripathi. THEre was a dispute between husband and the wife and consequently an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. was filed by the wife on 4-4-2003 (Annexure No. 1 ). In the said application the wife had claimed maintenance for herself and for her two infant children Kumari Garima aged about 7 years and Kushal Tripathi aged about 5 years. In the aforesaid application Ram Chandra Tripathi son of the present revisionist was the sole respondent. THE said application of the wife was registered as Case No. 136 of 2003. THE husband Ram Chandra Tripathi appeared in the case and filed his written statement on 4-1-2005 (Annexure No. 2 ). An application for interim maintenance was filed by the wife on 28-3-2005 which was allowed by the Additional Principal Judge, Allahabad vide his order dated 12-8-2005 (Annexure No. 3 ). THE Principal Judge Allahabad ordered the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 800/- to the wife and to her two issues totaling to Rs. 2,500/ -. It transpires that for the recovery of the said maintenance amount the property of the present revisionist was to be attached and therefore, the present revisionist, filed an application on 2-12-2005 before the Family Court that he be not harassed by the police and the police be directed to act in accordance with law. Alongwith the said application (Annexure No. 4) an advertisement and a copy of ration card and family register was filed by the present revisionist. THE advertisement/information was dated 15- 9-2005 wherein the present revisionist had divested his son Ram Chandra Tripathi and daughter-in-law Uma Devi from all his movable and immovable properties. Along with the said application Annexure No. 4 the revisionist had also filed his affidavit before the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad. He had also filed the documents regarding the fact that he had purchased the tractor trolley from his own money. THE revisionist had also filed a certificate from village Pradhan mentioning therein that the revisionist had five sons and his son Ram Chandra Tripathi and his daughter-in-law Uma Tripathi are living separately since last ten years and there was no relationship between the revisionist and his aforesaid son and daughter-in- law. It transpires from the record that a report was submitted by the police of Police Station Mahesh Ganj, District Pratapgarh that the tractor trolley standing at the door of the revisionist was seized by the police on 2-12-2005 mentioning therein that the husband Ram Chandra Tripathi had also got a share in the said tractor trolley and the present revisionist had not given it in share of anybody and hence the same was being attached. This attachment was done on 2-12-2005 at 6. 30 p. m. as the report of the aforesaid police station Annexure No. 5 indicates. After the attachment report was submitted by the police the Family Judge has passed the impugned order for sale. Hence, this revision.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the wife as well as learned A. G. A. contended that Additional Judge, Family Court has passed a legal order as there was nothing on record before him to show that there was partition in the family of the husband and therefore, the trolley also belong to the husband and the same was rightly seized and was rightly ordered to be sold. They further contended that the husband had made all the endevours to delay the proceeding under Section 125 Cr. P. C. being finalized.