Veer Pal vs State of U.P. and Others

S.C. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

No notice is issued to private respondent in view of the order proposed to be passed today, however, liberty is reserved for private respondent to apply for variation or modification of this order if he feels so aggrieved.

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.6.2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 5 as well as order dated 8.4.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Badaun.

Respondent No. 2 filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2006, which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 384 of 2006. The said application was allowed vide judgment and order dated 8th April, 2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1 and the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month from the date of application till the date of order and at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per month from the date of order.

The petitioner filed a criminal revision No. 303 of 2008, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 11.6.2010 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Badaun.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a labour and is unable to pay the amount of maintenance to his wife.

The respondent No. 2 was unable to maintain herself and the petitioner was bound to provide her sustenance. These are finding of facts and are based on proper evidence. The revision filed by the petitioner has already been dismissed.

As far as the amount awarded by the Magistrate is concerned, the same is very meagre and is rather inadequate. Even if the petitioner has no income, he is bound to maintain his wife and to provide her maintenance allowance.

I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter.

The revision is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.