MOHD. SAJID v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 2 OTHERS
/100/2025 · 2025-01-24
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 119347 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 119347 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4959 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 100 of 2025 Revisionist :- Mohd. Sajid Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Mohsin Iqbal,Husain Askari,Syed Shabih Haider Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. The present revision has been filed by the revisionist for quashing of the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Ayodhya in Case No.87 of 2013, Shabana Khatoon and another vs. Mohd. Sajid, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for respondent State. Notices to respondent nos. 2 and 3 are dispensed with in view of the proposed
order. It is not in dispute that respondent no.1 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. Respondent no.3 is the minor son of the revisionist. The revisionist has married with one Tarannum. He has three children from his second wife, thus due to this reason and also due to demand of dowry and cruelty committed upon the respondent no.2, respondent no.2 is residing away for sufficient cause, from the revisionist.
Learned counsel for the revisionist also could not show anything from the record that he has given adequate amount for the maintenance of respondent nos. 2 and
3. Respondent no.2 is the destitute and is incapable of maintaining herself as well as her minor child. Since, the revisionist is already maintaining his second wife and her three children, therefore, it may presumed that he is capable of maintaining his wife and his minor child from her. He is a man of sufficient resources. In view of the above, I find no illegality in the order impugned.
The revision, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the maintenance so awarded by the learned trial court to the respondent no.3 may be confined till he attains his majority. Needless to say that said stipulation is already given in the order impugned. There is no requirement of a fresh order.
Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench