This is a criminal revision challenging a maintenance order directing interim payment. The High Court dismissed the revision, noting no compliance with an interim order and lack of grounds to deny maintenance.
The 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. - 2427 of 2004
Revisionist :- Jitendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- P.C. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
"It is alleged that the marriage with the opposite party No.2 was never consumated and that the opposite party No.2 at no moment of time ever lived with the applicant.
Issue notice to the opposite party No.2.
List for admission on 19.07.2004.
The order dated 19.04.2004 passed by the Judge Family Court, Gorakhpur in Maintenance Case No. 230 of 2003 (Smt. Geeta Yadav Vs. Jitendra Yadav) shall remain stayed subject to the condition that the applicant deposits the entire amount before the court below within three weeks' from today. The said amount shall not be withdrawn by the opposite parties till further orders of this court"
Order Date :- 24.7.2019 YK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to uphold an interim order staying maintenance pending deposit of amount.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jitendra Yadav
State Of U.P.
Smt. Geeta Yadav
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
