Revision filed against Family Court maintenance order based on compromise. Court found no illegality as it was settled by parties and dismissed revision.
Petition dismissed with no maintenance payment order in this judgment.
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. - 410 of 1999
Revisionist :- Raju Chauhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Revisionist :- S.N.Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of revisionist and opposite party no. 3 to argue the case.
Heard learned A.G.A. for the State.
This revision has been filed against the order dated 08.12.1998 passed by Judge, Family Court , Varanasi in Case No. 355/1995 (Bindrawati Vs. Raju Chauhan). By the impugned order, on the basis of compromise revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 400/- per month maintenance to his wife Smt. Bindrawati Devi and Rs. 300/- per month maintenance to his daughter.
From the perusal of order, it is evident that impugned order has been passed on the basis of compromise and there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by Judge, Family Court, Varanasi.
Accordingly, instant criminal revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.4.2018 Sharad/-
Raju Chauhan
State Of U.P.
Smt. Bindrawati Devi
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
