Mohd. Naseem Khan vs State of U.P. and Others

Hon''ble Mrs. Jayashree Tiwari, J.—Case called out in the revised list.

Learned counsel for the revisionist is not present to press this revision. Learned A.G.A. is present.

The present criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 5.8.2002 passed u/s 125 Cr.P.C. granting maintenance amounting to Rs.800/- to the wife opposite party and Rs.800/- each to her minor children.

The main grounds for objection are that the judgment suffers from error of facts and law, that the wife opposite party is not entitled for maintenance after expiry of the period of Iddat and till then the maintenance has been provided to the opposite party, that there was no occasion to grant the maintenance allowance after the expiry of the period of Iddat and that the amount of the maintenance is too excessive.

In this context, I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned lower court. The learned lower court has vividly discussed all the relevant points material for determination of the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and has come to the conclusion that the opposite party is an illiterate and Parda-naseen woman. The learned lower court has also held that admittedly from the lawful wedlock of the revisionist and the opposite party, two children, namely, a son and a daughter were born. In these circumstances, the wife opposite party as well as her minor children are unable to maintain themselves and are entitled for the maintenance allowance. The learned lower court has referred to the two decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court and has passed the order of the maintenance in conformity with the said decisions.

Apparently, no illegality appears to have been committed by the learned lower court in the order so passed. So far as the amount of maintenance being too excessive is concerned, a perusal of the order shows that only Rs.800/-to the wife and Rs.800/-has been granted to each of her minor children.

Looking to the entirety of the present case, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the order which may require any intervention by this Court. The revision has, therefore, no force in itself and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the revision is dismissed.