ANJANI CHAUDHARY ALIAS ANKIT ALIAS ANJANI KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 2 OTHERS
CRLR/1393/2024 · 2025-01-02
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 168217 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 168217 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:230 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1393 of 2024 Revisionist :- Anjani Chaudhary Alias Ankit Alias Anjani Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Uma Kant Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State. Notices to respondent no. 2 are served, however, none appears on behalf of respondent no. 2. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.09.2024 by which the Principal Judge, Family Court, Raebareli has fixed the maintenance amount of Rs. 3000/- per month for wife and Rs. 2000/- for her minor son.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is not a man of sufficient means. The impugned order has been passed without application of mind. Perused the record. Perusal of the record shows that there is no dispute regarding the status of respondent no. 2 as the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and respondent no. 3 as their minor son. While deciding issue No. 2, it has been observed by the learned Family Court that the revisionist first subjected to demand of dowry and due to non-fulfillment of the demands of the revisionist, she was beaten and ousted from her matrimonial home. While deciding issue No. 3, it has been observed that the revisionist is a man of sufficient means.
In response to a specific query, learned counsel for the revisionist has informed the Court that he has not paid a single penny to respondent no. 2 and 3 since the day they were ousted from his house. Thus considering the above admitted facts as well as considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, which mandates that maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. should be awarded from the date of the application, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 12.09.2024. The revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.1.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench