Smt. Sangeeta vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Autar Singh, J.—This revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 1.11.2002 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2002, where under the revision has been partly allowed and the order dated 1.5.2002 passed by 9th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaiabad in Case No. 39 of 2000 has been modified to this extent that Respondent No. 2 will pay Rs. 1000/- per month as maintenance allowance to the revisionist and Rs. 1500/- per month for her children.

It transpires from the record that application u/s 125 Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the revisionist against Respondent No. 2 Constable Ajai Pal Siongh before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, which was allowed and Respondent No. 2 was directed to pay Rs. 2000/- per month to revisionist and Rs. 3000/- per month for her children as maintenance allowance, aggrieved by which, the Respondent No. 2 filed Criminal Revision No. 214 of 2002, which was partly allowed and maintenance allowance as awarded was reduced as above. The revisionist then filed this revision for quashing the order passed by the revisional court praying for enhancement of maintenance allowance.

The learned Counsel for the revisionist has contended that in view of new pay structure sanctioned by Government of U.P. the Respondent No. 2 has been getting more than Rs. 15,000/- per month as his salary and thus the revisional court has committed factual and legal error in reducing the amount of maintenance allowance. I agree with this contention that in view of the new structure of pay the Respondent No. 2 has been getting Rs. 15,000/- per month and thus amount awarded by the trial court appears to be just and proper. Consequently the judgment and order passed by the revisional court deserves to be modified. Consequently this revision is allowed, the judgment and order dated 1.11.2002 passed by the revisional court is modified and the judgment and order dated 1.5.2002 passed by the trial court is upheld with effect from the date of this order. However, the revisionist and her children will get maintenance allowance in the light of order passed by revisional court before the date of this order.