Allowed

Smt. Israwati @ Shakuntla Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2018CRLR/1414/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Case set aside a Family Court order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. due to a clerical error in the petitioner's affidavit citing the wrong husband's name. The Superior Court quashed the decision and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28.2.2013 was quashed and the matter remitted to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur for a fresh decision.

Smt. Israwati @ Shakuntla Devi and 2 Others Vs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1414 of 2013

¶3

Revisionist :- Smt. Israwati @ Shakuntla Devi & 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Balwant Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,A.K.Pathak

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Balwant Singh, learned counsel for the revisionists, Smt. Madhurani Garg, learned A.G.A., for the State and Sri A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2. Perused the record.

¶6

This criminal revision has been preferred by the revisionists with a prayer to set aside the order dated 28.2.2013 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Suit No. 714 of 2011 (Smt. Israwati @ Shakuntala Devi and others Vs. Baij Nath Yadav) under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶7

It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionists that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., has not been decided on merit but only on the technical ground that in the ex-parte evidence, an affidavit has been filed in which it is mentioned that husband name of Smt. Israwati is Sheshnath Yadav, however, her husband name is Baijnath Yadav. This mistake has occurred due to typing and as such, passing of the impugned orders are per-se bad, and same are liable to be quashed.

¶8

Learned A.G.A., for the State as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 have contended that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶9

It is admitted fact that husband name of Smt. Israwati is Baijnath Yadav. Due to typing mistake, in the affidavit filed by her, her husband name is wrongly mentioned as Sheshnath Yadav and the impugned order is not passed on merit.

¶10

In view of this, order dated 28.2.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur to decide the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., afresh in accordance with law expeditiously but certainly after taking note of view point of both the parties.

¶11

Consequently, the criminal revision is allowed .

¶12

Order Date :- 2.4.2018 Jaswant

Smt. Israwati @ Shakuntla Devi and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Israwati @ Shakuntla Devi and 2 Others 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Rawat and Another Vs State of U.P.

Dhanush Lal and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.

Udaiveer Singh Vs State of U.P.

Vikas Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Chhote Lal Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rabish Gour Minor Vs State of U.P. and Another