Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 170 (ALL)

AMAR NATH SHUKLA v. STATE OF U. P.

2017-01-12

PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Prabhat Chandra Tripathi, J. 1. List has been revised. Sri S.K. Singh and Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsels for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State are present. None responds on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. Although, case is listed as peremptorily today. 2. While assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhadohi Gyanpur in Maintenance Case No. 215 of 2013 (Amar Nath Shukla vs. Suresh Chandra Shukla); Sri P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist has emphatically argued that in this case such type of order may be passed by this Court which may send a strong message in the society. 3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist gets a very meagre amount as his pension and a very small amount as pension for the disabled person and being of old age the revisionist is unable to cultivate his agricultural holdings. It has been next argued that opposite party is son of revisionist and he bears some responsibility to maintain his father also. It has been also argued that since the total pension amount and the earnings from agricultural holdings are insufficient for the revisionist, the opposite party must spare some amount from his earnings as maintenance allowance for his father. 4. Heard and perused the impugned judgment and order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhadohi Gyanpur. 5. It is evident from the aforementioned impugned judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhadohi Gyanpur that opposite party Suresh Chandra Shukla is son of the revisionist. His younger brother has attained majority of age and is doing a job at Mumbai. Revisionist and younger brother of opposite party are hand-in-gloves with each other and at the behest of younger brother of opposite party, revisionist and younger brother of opposite party Arun Kumar alias Arvind Shukla on date 30.11.2011 went together to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gyanpur and executed a sale deed of plot no. 249/2 in favour of one Sangeeta Devi. Although, opposite party has 1/2 share in the above-mentioned sale consideration but he was not given even a single penny. Upon instigation of younger brother of opposite party; revisionist, who is father of opposite party instituted a false case in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, titled as State vs. Suresh Chandra. Although, opposite party has 1/2 share in the above-mentioned sale consideration but he was not given even a single penny. Upon instigation of younger brother of opposite party; revisionist, who is father of opposite party instituted a false case in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, titled as State vs. Suresh Chandra. It has also been mentioned in the objection filed before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhadohi Gyanpur that there is ill-will since last several years between the revisionist and opposite party. 6. In the aforementioned objection filed by the opposite party before the Principal Judge, Bhadohi Gyanpur, pension and pension for disabled persons have been mentioned in detail. 7. Revisionist and opposite party have adduced their evidences. 8. It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the revisionist that revisionist does not get any pension and pension for disabled persons and total pension amount has been calculated as Rs. 1918.20 per month and pension for disability as Rs. 300/- per month. Agricultural land holdings which are in the name of revisionist have also not been denied by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 9. Section 125 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is enumerated in verbatim as follows: "125. Order for maintenance of wives, children and parents.-(1) If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain:- (d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself......" 10. According to the above detailed and meticulous discussion and marshalling of evidence by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhadohi-Gyanpur; It is crystal clear that revisionist has sufficient monetary income from his pension and other pension which he is getting as a disabled person. Moreover, there are several agricultural land holdings in the name of the revisionist and the case of the revisionist is not covered under Section 125 (d) Cr.P.C. 11. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find that the impugned judgment and order dated 21.10.2014 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhadohi Gyanpur suffers from any illegality, perversity or illegality to warrant interference by this Court. 12. The instant criminal revision lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed. 13. Certify this judgment to the lower court immediately.