In a criminal revision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against an interim maintenance order, the High Court dismissed the revision. The Court held that the fact of marriage was admitted and thus the husband was liable to maintain the wife.
The criminal revision was dismissed and the interim maintenance order of Rs. 300/- per month to the wife was upheld.
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. - 641 of 1992
Revisionist :- Sushil Opposite Party :- State And Other Counsel for Revisionist :- S.K. Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.,P.C. Srivastava
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. None is present on behalf of revisionist and opposite party. Heard Learned A.G.A., for the State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 26.3.1992 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III in Criminal Misc. Application No. 8 of 1991 (Smt. Sunita Devi Vs. Sushil Chandra Asthana) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist (Sushil Chandra Asthana) was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 300/- per month to opposite party no. 2 (Smt. Sunita Devi) and Rs. 200/- to her minor child during the pendency of the suit.
Brief facts of the case are that opposite party (Smt. Sunita Devi) was married to revisionist (Sushil Chandra Asthana) on 31.1.1990. After that she went to her matrimonial home. She was subjected to cruelty and harassed by her husband and in-laws in connection with demand of dowry. She was compelled to leave her matrimonial home and apply for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Learned Magistrate has observed that it is admitted fact that opposite party (Smt. Sunita Devi) is married with revisionist (Sushil Chandra Asthana). Revisionist (Sushil Chandra Asthana) is liable to maintain her wife.
Accordingly, impugned order dated 26.3.1992 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is based on evidence and is not perverse.
In the result, this criminal revision stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.5.2018 Jaswant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order directing payment of interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is perverse.
Whether the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate erred in holding the revisionist liable to maintain his wife.
Whether this criminal revision should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sushil Chandra Asthana
State And Other
Smt. Sunita Devi
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
