Dismissed

Sachin @ Rinku Sahu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 May 2018CRLR/1698/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the revision against a Family Court order awarding maintenance of Rs. 2500. Despite the revisionist's claim of being a landless laborer, the court found him an able-bodied person sufficient to earn for his family. An additional deposit of Rs. 5000 was ordered.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to deposit Rs. 5,000 for April and May 2018 and comply with the original order from June 2018.

Sachin @ Rinku Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1698 of 2018 Revisionist :- Sachin @ Rinku Sahu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Abhay Raj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶4

The present revisionist has been preferred against the order dated 05.04.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot in Criminal Misc. Case No. 144 of 2016, in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., by that order Rs.2500/has been awarded to the opposite party no.2 as maintenance allowance, without considering the records, which is also too excessive.

¶5

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the award of monthly maintenance allowance is excessive. Considering the fact that the revisionist is a landless manual labrour.

¶6

Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned court below has found the revisionist to be an able body person. This fact is admitted to the revisionist. Also certain minimum amount are necessary to be awarded to the claimant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to preserve human life with some dignity.

¶7

In that background, considering the fact that the revisionist being an able body person, even if he worked as a manual labrour he would be able to earn sufficient amount to provide for the monthly maintenance allowance as awarded. It is further observed that the monthly maintenance allowance awarded in the present case is towards a minimum amount as are necessary to preserve human life with some dignity.

¶8

In view of the above no interference is warranted, accordingly, the revision is dismissed.

¶9

However, it is further provided that monthly maintenance allowance for the period April and May-2018 being Rs.5,000/be allowed to be deposited by the revisionist on or before 30.06.2018 before the court below. The revisionist may continue to comply the impugned order from June-2018, strictly in terms thereof.

¶10

Order Date :- 22.5.2018 VKG

Sachin @ Rinku Sahu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin @ Rinku Sahu 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

Aakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amarjeet Singh Taneja Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Moni Sahu Vs Naresh Sahu

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satyendra Kumar Rai and 2 Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Dharmveer and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another