The High Court dismissed the criminal revision filed by Hardan Singh against orders issued by the First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, releasing a reminder for maintenance arrears under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.
The instant 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. - 739 of 1994
Revisionist :- Hardan Singh Opposite Party :- State And Ors. Counsel for Revisionist :- K.C. Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
List has been revised. No one is present on behalf of revisionist to argue the case.
Heard learned A.G.A. for State.
This criminal revision has been preferred against the orders dated 04.03.1994 and 21.01.1994 passed by First Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, whereby the reminder for recovery of arrears of maintenance was issued to District Magistrate, Mathura.
Perused the impugned order. As per provision of Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. if any person so ordered to pay maintenance, fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, Magistrate may issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines.
In view of above, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Magistrate.
Accordingly, instant criminal revision is dismissed .
Order Date :- 1.5.2018 Sharad/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order issuing a reminder for recovery of maintenance arrears was lawful under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hardan Singh
State And Ors.
Umesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
