In this criminal revision against a Family Court order granting maintenance, the High Court heard counsel for both sides, perused the impugned order, and found no illegality or perversity, dismissing the revision.
The criminal revision was dismissed.
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. - 28
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2380 of 2001
Revisionist :- Suresh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Another Counsel for Revisionist :- K.D. Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Shilpa Ahuja
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised.
Heard learned counsel for revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against judgment and order dated 04.09.2001 passed by Family Court, Moradabad in Case No. 183/11/1999 (Smt. Shashi Bala Vs. Suresh) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Gajraula, District J.P. Nagar, whereby application of applicant Smt. Shashi Bala under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance to his wife Smt. Shashi Bala from the date of presentation of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before court.
The brief facts of the case are that Smt. Shashi Bala was married with Suresh on 16.04.1993. After that she went to her matrimonial home and she was subjected to cruelty and harass by her-in-laws. On 09.05.1999, Suresh has beaten her and compelled to leave her matrimonial home. Since then, she is living at her parental home. Suresh is a shop keeper of Bharat General Store and he earns Rs. 5000/- per month.
Learned counsel for opposite party and learned A.G.A. contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by court below.
Perused the impugned order.
Finding of learned court below is based on evidence and is not perverse. I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned court below.
In view of above, instant criminal revision stands dismissed .
Order Date :- 4.5.2018 Sharad/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order passed by the Family Court allowing maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is illegal or perverse.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of U.P.
Suresh
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
