Hamida Begum and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

M.A. Khan, J.—Heard the parties learned Counsel.

I have gone through the records for petition u/s 125, Cr. P.C.

Learned Magistrate granted the maintenance on the petition u/s 125, Cr. P.C. and directed the payment of Rs. 150 per month to the child Kamar Alam. However, to the wife the maintenance was allowed on certain conditions. On revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the entire order passed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the petition u/s 125, Cr. P.C. and the present revision has been filed.

I have gone through the records. The order passed by the learned I Vth Additional Sessions Judge so far as it relates to the Petitioner No. 2 Kamar Alam is illegal. There was absolutely no jurisdiction with the learned I Vth Additional Sessions Judge for dismissing the Petitioner for maintenance by a small child aged about 5 years. The wife was reluctant to join the company of the husband. The child was not to be blamed for that because the child was in the custody of the mother. However, the child aforesaid is still entitled for the maintenance from the father.

The revision is accordingly allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned I Vth Additional Sessions Judge so far as it relates to revisionists No. 2 Kamar Alam is set aside. It is directed that the opposite party No. 2 Mohd. Naseem Khan shall pay a sum of Rs. 150 per month by way of maintenance to the Petitioner No. 2 Kamar Alam from the date of the order by the learned Magistrate. As far as the claim of the Petitioner No. 1 wife is concerned, it is rightly rejected by the learned I Vth Additional Sessions Judge and it requires no interference by this Court.

With the above observations the petition is disposed of finally.