Dismissed

Rahmat Uttah v. Mohd. Bakridi and Another

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2019CRLR/1561/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court refused to set aside an ex parte maintenance order passed by the Family Court, Allahabad. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Bench held that the revision must be decided on merits rather than dismissed in default and noted the limited power of the revisional court to reappreciate evidence in maintenance matters. Having found no illegality, the revisi

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; stay order, if any, is vacated.

Rahmat Uttah Vs Mohd. Bakridi and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1561 of 1995 Revisionist :- Rahmat Ullah Opposite Party :- Mohd. Bakridi And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- R.B.Sahai

¶3

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶4

List has been revised. Revisionist or his learned counsel is not present. Perused the material available on record.

¶5

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 01.06.1993, passed by Family Court, Allahabad in Case No. 221 of 1991 under Section 125 Criminal Procedure Code deciding the case ex parte and directing the applicant to pay Rs. 400/- per month from the date of application (from 01.06.1988 to 17.11.1955).

¶6

In the case of Santosh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that after admission of criminal revision, there is no procedure for dismissing the same in default and even if the revisionist is absent, the revision cannot be dismissed in default but it has to be decided on merit, so, this revision is decided according to its merit.

¶7

It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pravati Rani Sahoo vs. Bishnupada Sahoo (2002) 10 SCC 510 that in a revision against the order awarding maintenance by Magistrate u/s 125 Cr.P.C. revisional court has no power to reassess evidence and substitute its own findings. Under revisional jurisdiction, the questions whether the applicant is a married wife or divorcee, the children are legitimate or illegitimate being per-eminently questions of fact, cannot be reopened and the revisional court cannot substitute its own view.

¶8

After proper analysis of evidence, Family Court, Allahabad has awarded Rs. 400/- per month as maintenance allowance to opposite party no. 2, Km. Maimina @ Maimoona.

¶9

There is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgement and order. Finding is based on the appraisal of evidence on record. So, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Consequently, revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

Revision is dismissed. Stay order, if any, is vacated.

¶11

A copy of this order be transmitted to the learned lower court for compliance within one month.

¶12

Order Date :- 7.2.2019/Vibha Singh

Rahmat Uttah v. Mohd. Bakridi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahmat Uttah v. Mohd. Bakridi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanu Pratap Vs State of U.P. and Others

Satyavir Vs State of U.P.

Arshad Ali Vs State of U.P.

Harendra Singh and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bishambhar Nath Tewari Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Draupadi Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P.