Aftab Ahmad vs Smt. Najma

Hon''ble S.C. Chaurasia, J.—List revised.

None appears on behalf of the opposite party.

Heard Sri Ikram Ahmad, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

This criminal revision has been preferred against the impugned order dated 14.3.2011, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly, in Criminal Misc.Case No. 660 of 2008, Smt. Najma Versus Aftab Ahmad, whereby, she disposed of the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and directed the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 600/-per month to his wife, Smt. Najma from the date of order and a sum of Rs. 600/-to her daughter, Shifa from the date of application during the period of her minority.

The matter was referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court, but, its report dated 30.9.2011 indicates that no agreement was possible between the parties.

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is willing to keep his wife with him and hence, he is not liable to pay any maintenance allowance to her.

From perusal of the record, it transpires that an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the revisionist''s wife, Smt Najma on the ground that her marriage was performed with him on 13.11.2005 as per Muslims rites and customs and a daughter, Shifa was born out of their wedlock. Thereafter, her husband and his family members started maltreatment with her and sent her to her parents'' house. Her husband has neglected to maintain her. She is unable to maintain herself. Her husband carries a shop of tailoring and his monthly income is Rs. 10,000/-.

Revisionist/opposite party filed written statement and admitted his marriage with Smt. Najma and also admitted that a daughter was born out of their wedlock, but, he has denied the other allegations made against him. His version is that he is ready to keep her with him, but, she is not ready to live with him, without any sufficient ground. His monthly income is about Rs. 2,000/-.

The applicant, Smt. Najma examined herself as A.P.W.-1 and her mother, Saira Bano as A.P.W.-2 in support of her case and also filed documentary evidence. The revisionist/opposite party, 10. Aftab Ahmad examined himself as O.P.W.-1.

After considering the evidence available on record and rival versions of the parties, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has directed to pay maintenance allowance to his wife and daughter, as referred to above, vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.3.2011.

After considering the record, impugned order and submissions made on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has not committed any illegality or impropriety in exercise of its jurisdiction in granting the maintenance allowance, as referred to above. The amount of maintenance fixed by the competent court can also not be said to be excessive. Under these circumstances, no interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

This criminal revision lacks merit and it is dismissed accordingly.