HARISH CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has not filed the latest salary slip of the revisionist in compliance with the order dated 23.8.2017. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.3.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Fatehpur in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 2008, setting aside the judgment and order dated 27.8.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate in Case No. 41 of 2008, under section 4 (1) of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, allowing the appeal and directing the revisionist to provide residential accommodation to opposite party No. 2 and her son in his house or provide residence to them elsewhere as well as for making payment of Rs. 1500/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 for meeting with the educational expenses of her son.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the marriage between the revisionist and opposite party No. 2 was solemnized about 18 years before filing of the complaint under Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the opposite party No. 2 in the year 2008; that the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce on 29.1.1998; that the opposite party No. 2 deserted the revisionist in the year 1990 while the son was born to her in the year 1991, so the son of opposite party No. 2 is not born from the revisionist and is not legitimate son of revisionist; that the learned Magistrate had rightly dismissed the application under Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acted wrongly and illegally in setting aside the judgment and order of Magistrate; that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acted wrongly in holding that the son is legitimate son of revisionist and the revisionist has not obtained any declaratory decree from competent court, declaring that Deepak is not his legitimate son; that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and by setting aside the impugned order passed in appeal, the order dated 27.8.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate is liable to be restored.