Dismissed

Baburam v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2018CRLR/1002/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision against a Family Court order awarding monthly maintenance, the High Court dismissed the appeal. Upholding the lower court's assessment of the petitioner's income at Rs. 10,000 and the maintenance amount of Rs. 4,000, the court found no perversity or arbitrariness warranting interference.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed, affirming the court below's order granting Rs. 4,000/- monthly maintenance.

Baburam Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1002 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Baburam Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bharat Garg Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shikhar Trivedi holding brief of Sri Bharat Garg, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as also perused the record.

¶6

The present revision has been filed against the order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad dated 16.01.2018. By which the said court has awarded monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 4,000/per month to the opposite party no.2 from the date of that order.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the award of monthly maintenance allowance is excessive and arbitrary and it is beyond the means of the present applicant.

¶8

Perusal of the order passed by the learned court below reveals that while in the statement of opposite party no.2. had stated that the applicant has large agricultural holding and that he is engaged in business of running an oil expeller and also running a dairy, wherefrom he derives monthly income of Rs. 25,000/- per month, the learned court below has not entirely believed the case set up by the opposite party no.2. On the other hand, the learned court below has noted that the applicant during his cross examination had admitted to have passed the intermediate course. Further, it has been admitted that the total agricultural holding which he shares with his brothers was about 20 bigha and that the applicant alongwith his brothers was running oil expeller unit. Considering the above, the learned court below estimated the income of the applicant at Rs. 10,000/- per month.

¶9

No evidence or material has been brought on record in the present application that may create any doubt as to the correctness of the finding recorded by the learned court below. Also, there does not exist any material on the basis of which it may be said that the findings recorded by the court below are either perverse or wholly arbitrary.

¶10

It is also seen that the award of monthly maintenance allowance is from the date of order and not from the date of application being of the year 2016.

¶11

In view of the facts noted above, the order passed by the learned court below does not warrant any interference. The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 3.4.2018 Lbm/-

Baburam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburam v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Jaiswal and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Gaurh and 22 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Dilip Juneja Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mukesh and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another