Criminal revision challenging orders allowing interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The High Court found no illegality or impropriety and dismissed the revision as failed.
The criminal revision was dismissed with no interference in the impugned orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 44
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1901 of 2018
Revisionist :- Alok Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashutosh Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 9th March, 2018 passed by the Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) Sonbhadra in Appeal No. 10 of 2017 (Alok Kumar Singh vs. Smt. Neetu Singh) as well as the order dated 13th January, 2017 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra in Complaint Case No. 1738 of 2015 (Neetu Singh vs. Alok Kumar Singh) under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 2005"), Police Station Robertsganj, District Sonbhadra.
Opposite party no.2 initiated proceedings against the revisionist by filing Complaint Case No. 1738 of 2015 under Section 29 of Act, 2009. In the aforesaid case, an application under 23 of the Act, 2005 claiming interim maintenance was filed, which came to be allowed by the Magistrate concerned vide order dated 13th January, 2017. Aggrieved by the order dated 13th January, 2017, revisionist filed an appeal in terms of Section 31 of the Act, 2005, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 9th March, 2018.
Thus, aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, revisionist has now approached this Court by means of the present criminal revision.
Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and upon perusal of the impugned orders, the Court finds that no illegality or impropriety has been committed by the courts below in passing the aforesaid impugned orders. Admittedly, opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the applicant and a meagre sum of Rs. 2,500/- has been awarded by the court below towards interim maintenance.
No such issue was brought to the notice of the Court on the basis of which the finding recorded in the impugned orders could be termed as illegal, perverse or erroneous or the court was inherently lacking the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
This being the position, no case for interference with the orders impugned is made out.
The present criminal remain fails and is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajeev Misra, J.)
Order Date :- 16.7.2018
Sushil/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned courts below committed any illegality or impropriety in allowing interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Alok Kumar Singh
State Of U.P.
Smt. Neetu Singh
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
