Newase Ali vs State of U.P.& Anr.

B. K. Rathi, J.—This is a revision under Sections 397/401, Cr.P.C. against the order dated 19499 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Moradabad in Case No. 175 of 1997.

The facts giving rise to this revision are as follows:

Opposite party No. 2 moved an application under Section 125, Cr. P.C. before the Judge, Family Court, Moradabad, which was case No. 175 of 1997 for her maintenance and also for the maintenance to her children. The application was contested. The learned Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs. 400/ per month to the opposite party No. 2 from 9197 Le. from the date of application till 24998, the date of divorce. No maintenance has been awarded for the children on the ground that they are living with the applicant. The refusal has not been challenged before me by opposite party No. 2. The applicant is aggrieved by the maintenance awarded to opposite party No. 2 and therefore, preferred the present revision.

I have heard Sri Brijesh Sahai, learned Counsel for the applicant and the A.G.A. Opposite Party No. 2 has not been appeared in spite of service on notice and therefore, could not be heard.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that he has already divorced opposite party No. 2 orally and also by a deed dated 21296, which has been signed by him as well as by opposite party No. 2. That therefore, opposite party No. 2 was not entitled to maintenance after 21296. The learned Judge, Family Court considered the evidence in detail. He observed that the revisionist examined himself and Maqbool D.W. 2. Maqbool is a resident of the village of the applicant and is not a witness of Talaknama. There are other witnesses of Talaknama, but none of them has been examined. The presence of Maqbool, who is a resident of his village at the time of Talak, is improbable. Opposite party No. 2 denied the execution of Talak.

In the circumstances, the learned Judge, Family Court has rightly held that the applicant has failed to prove that any such Talaknama was executed on 21296 and Talak was given orally. I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the learned Judge, Family Court.

The learned Judge, Family Court has also observed that the Talak shall be deemed from the date the plea was taken in the W.S. and awarded maintenance from the date of application till that date. I do not find any illegality in the order.

Regarding quantum of maintenance, the same appears to be just and reasonable. It is alleged that the applicant is carrying on the work of agriculture and is also running a Dairy.

In the circumstances, the revision is without merits and is dismissed.

Revision dismissed.