VAKEEL AHAMAD v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
CRLR/1514/2024 · 2025-01-23
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 169555 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 169555 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:4480 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1514 of 2024 Revisionist :- Vakeel Ahamad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sabir Ali Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. In compliance of order dated 6.12.2024 passed by this Court, respondent no.2 is present, in person, before this Court, who has been identified by her counsel. Upon being questioned by the Court, respondent no.2 expressed her unwillingness to settle the dispute through mediation, citing two previous failed attempts due to the revisionist's non-payment. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the revisionist in front of the revisionist, who is also present in court, that till date not a single penny has been given to respondent no.2. Perused the record. Perusal of the record shows that it is undisputed that respondent no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist and respondent nos. 3 and 4 are the minor children of the revisionist. As respondent nos. 2 to 4 are unable to maintain themselves, the learned court below while deciding issue no.3, after considering the material available on record, arrived at a conclusion that minimum income of the revisionist is Rs.35,0000/- per month. Respondent no.2 to 4 have been neglected and have not been paid a single penny since the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., which could not be disputed by the revisionist or the learned counsel revisionist, who are present before the court. The respondents are residing away from the revisionist for sufficient cause. The revisionist is a taxi driver and has also agricultural land and thus he is a man of sufficient means. Considering all these aspects learned trial court has rightly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. I find no illegality in the order impugned.
The revision, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Madhu D.R/P.S Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench