DR. TARIQ ALI Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2016-6-117
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on June 07,2016

Dr. Tariq Ali Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ABHAI KUMAR, J. - (1.) This revision under Sections 397/401 of Cr.P.C, 1973, has been filed against the impugned order dated 05.03.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bijnor, whereby application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. of opposite party nos. 2 and 3 was allowed. The relevant facts in brief are as follows:- Dr. Iram Fatima, opposite party no. 2 was married on 17.02.2008 to the revisionist Dr. Tariq Ali. In the month of May, 2009, the wife deserted the from the revisionist on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry and since then she is living separately. Application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C was being moved. After the evidence of the parties and hearing the parties, the impugned order was passed, whereby the opposite party no. 2 - Dr. Iram Fatima was awarded Rs. 5,000/- per month and the opposite party no. 3 was awarded Rs. 3,000/- per month for their maintenance from the date of application.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for revisionist that opposite party no. 2 - Dr. Iram Fatima herself is a doctor and she can very well maintain herself as such the maintenance given to her is legally not sustainable. Learned counsel for the revisionist has also opposed the maintenance from the date of application but, so far the maintenance that is being awarded to the opposite party no. 3 - Baby Sadiya (Km. Sadiya Fatima), no objection has been raised by the learned counsel.
(3.) It is admitted fact that opposite party no. 2 married to revisionist though it is submitted by learned counsel that she has already been divorced by the revisionist but on that count the impugned order is not being challenged. This is not disputed that opposite party no. 2 is a doctor. She earns about Rs. 25,000/- per month from the practices in her home town is disputed and she has also worked in Welcome Hospital Center from 04.08.2008 to 18.05.2009 is not disputed, but it is asserted by opposite party no. 2 that after that Dr. Iram Fatima is jobless and she is not practising and as such she is entitled to maintenance for herself.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.