Disposed

Kunteesh Agrawal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2018CRLR/971/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 971 of 2018, the High Court directed parties to produce evidence regarding the employment duration of the opposite party No. 2 to determine maintenance liability. The impugned orders were quashed, and a fresh order was directed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 15.2.2018 and 31.01.2018 were quashed; parties directed to produce evidence regarding employment duration for a fresh order.

Kunteesh Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 971 of 2018

¶3

Revisionist :- Kunteesh Agrawal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sanjeev Mishra Gana Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Puneet Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

¶7

This revision is directed against the order dated 15.2.2018 as well as order dated 31.01.2018 passed by Family Court/Fast Tract Court -I, Bareilly in Session Trial No. 168 of 2013 as well as 1444 of 2016, under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.C., Police Station Prem Nagar, District Bareilly.

¶8

By the aforesaid order, the court below is directed the revisionist to deposit maintenance as per the order dated 16.01.2013 passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. It has been argued that after the decision of the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 16.1.2013, the opposite party No. 2 got employment and has worked from 05.01.2014 to 01.9.2016.

¶9

Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 has disputed the averments according to him, the opposite party has worked only from November 2014 to May May 2015.

¶10

This revision is disposed of directing the parties to produce evidence before the court below regarding the employment of opposite party No.2, after the order dated 16.01.2013 was passed and court below is directed to consider the evidence of the parties and decide for how long the opposite party No.2 has worked and has drawn salary. After hearing the parties and considering their evidence, the court below shall pass a fresh order of recovery in accordance with law.

¶11

The court below shall only consider the grievance of the revisionist, if he keeps on paying the amount of maintenance month to month as per order dated 16.01.2013, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or any order

¶12

passed under Section 127 Cr.P.C. as alleged by the counsel for the opposite party No.2.

¶13

The aforesaid orders dated 15.2.2018 and 31.01.2018 are hereby quashed.

¶14

Order Date :- 4.12.2018 Ruchi Agrahari

Kunteesh Agrawal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunteesh Agrawal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amir Hasan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vakeel Akhtar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajli Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 others

Sabir Ali Vs State of U.P.

Vinod Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another