In a criminal revision concerning an interim maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the High Court found no manifest error or illegality in the lower court's decision to grant allowance to the minor son. The revision was dismissed, and interim orders were vacated.
Revision dismissed; interim order vacated.
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. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1636 of 1998
Revisionist :- Smt. Sadibun
Opposite Party :- Judge Family Court Gorakhpur And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- V.P. Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Sayed Wajid Ali
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Order Date :- 15.11.2019 Siddhant Sahu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any manifest error or illegality existed in the family court's order granting interim maintenance to the minor son under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Whether the revisionist husband was entitled to relief in the criminal revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Sadibun
Judge Family Court Gorakhpur
Sudhir Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
