ANAND KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 06.04.2017 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba in Case No.166 of 2016, under Section 125 Cr.P.c. (Smt. Ranjana and others Vs. Anand Kumar), Police Station Kotwali, Mahoba, District-Mahoba, whereby, vide order dated 06.04.2017, learned Principal Judge has allowed the application of wife for maintenance and awarded a total sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as maintenance allowance from the date of the application.

(2.) Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the order passed by the lower court is against the provision of law and against the evidence on record. The respondent No.2, who is the wife of revisionist has herself refused to perform conjugal rights and live with her husband without any sufficient reason. Respondent No.2 is also doing private job and earning good salary, but the court below did not consider this fact. The revisionist' father has died and he has lots of responsibilities. He is ready to keep his wife with him, but learned court below failed to appreciate the contention and awarded maintenance allowance in question, which is excessive and beyond the capacity of revisionist. The court below has wrongly determined the income of revisionist without any proper evidence. Revisionist has also initiated the case under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, therefore, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside and present revision is liable to be allowed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 as well as learned A.G.A. has refuted the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist.