Allowed

Mohd. Ishaq v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 May 2018CRLR/1941/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision against a Family Court order directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his minor son. The Court held the order unsustainable because the petitioner had already filed a Section 125 Cr.P.C. application for the same son and mother on the same facts, making this second application non-maintenable.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 02.05.2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh, directing the petitioner to pay maintenance to his minor son, is set aside.

Mohd. Ishaq Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1941 of 2015

¶3

Revisionist :- Mohd. Ishaq Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Devesh Kumar Shukla,Praveen Kumar Shukla,Umesh Singh

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate,Kashi Naresh Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 02.05.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh in Case No. 370/11/2011 (Ubaid Vs. Mohd. Ishaq), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Civil Line, District Aligarh, whereby revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 500/- per month for maintenance to his minor son Mohd. Ubaid during pendency of case.

¶8

Learned counsel for revisionist contended that earlier Opposite Party No. 2 Smt. Rehana Khatoon, mother of Mohd. Ubaid had filed application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance of herself and her minor son in Case No. 518/11/09 (Smt. Rehana Khatoon Vs. Sayyad Mohammad Ishaq). On the same fact, no second application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is maintenable.

¶9

Learned counsel for opposite party and learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by court below.

¶10

From the perusal of order dated 09.12.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in Case No. 518/11/09 (Smt. Rehana Khatoon Vs. Sayyad Mohammad Ishaq), it reveals that Smt. Rehana Khatoon had filed application for maintenance of herself and her minor son Mhd. Ubaid. Second application in Case No. 370/11/2011 (Ubaid Vs. Mohd. Ishaq) is not maintenable on the same fact.

¶11

Learned family court has passed the impgned order without ascertaining the fact that on the same fact, appellant had filed another application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before this application. As such impugned order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh is against law which is not sustainable.

¶12

Accordingly, instant criminal revision is allowed and order dated 02.05.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Aligarh in Case No. 370/11/2011 (Ubaid Vs. Mohd. Ishaq), under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is hereby set-aside.

¶13

Order Date :- 1.5.2018 Sharad/-

Mohd. Ishaq v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Ishaq v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Daya Ram and Others Vs State of U.P.

Raja @ Rajat Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Zahid @ Sahil Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Badan Vs State of U.P.

Hardan Singh Vs State and Ors.

Ram Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P.