Uttarakhand High Court
CLR/43/2003 of MOHD. MUZAMIL SAMSI Vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT and ANR. on 8 December 2003
COURT OF UTTARANCHAL At NAINITAL Civil Revision No. 43 of 2003 Mohd. Muzamil Samsi S/o Mohd. Irfan, R/o Garhi Chowki, P.S. Qila, District-Bareilly. … Revisionist. Versus 1. Judge Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar, 2. Smt. Robina W/o Mohd Muzamil, D/o Khurshid Ahmad, R/o Ward No. 13, Kasba
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL At NAINITAL
Civil Revision No. 43 of 2003
Mohd. Muzamil Samsi S/o Mohd. Irfan, R/o Garhi Chowki, P.S. Qila, District-Bareilly. … Revisionist.
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Judge Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar,
2. Smt. Robina W/o Mohd Muzamil,
D/o Khurshid Ahmad,
R/o Ward No. 13, Kasba and P.S. Kichha,
Distt. Udham Singh Nagar. …. Respondents Hon’ble P.C.Verma, J.
This Sri Alok Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
This revision has been field by the revisionist against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2003 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Udham Singh Nagar in case No. 112 of 2002 under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by which the learned court below granted maintenance & Rs. 1,000/- per month for the wife and Rs. 500/- per month for the daughter.
The grounds shown in the present revision are that the revisionist was willingness to take his wife and daughter; that the revisionist has filed a Civil Suit for restitution of conjugal rights in Family Court, Bareilly prior to the above case under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; that the court below has not recorded valid reasons of the wife prior to the above case under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; that staying away from the husband; that there is no mention of earning and unemployment of the wife in the judgment; that the revisionist has no permanent source of income.
I have perused the impugned judgment. In my opinion sufficient and cogent reasons have been recorded by the learned Judge Family Court in granting maintenance. No other grounds are raised in this revision for consideration. No interference is called for in the order impugned. The maintenance awarded is reasonable.
Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.
December 8,2003:NCM:
(P.C. Verma, J.)