Dismissed

Subodh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC9 Dec 2019CRLR/2600/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed the husband's challenge to the trial court's order awarding Rs.3000/- monthly maintenance. The Court found no illegality, observing the husband owns land, has property, and earns Rs.20,000/- monthly.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; trial court order allowing Rs.3000/- monthly maintenance to wife stands upheld.

Subodh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2600 of 2018 Revisionist :- Subodh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Ashish Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Ram Ashish Pandey, learned Counsel for revisionist, learned AGA for State and perused the material available on record.

¶4

This criminal revision has been directed against the order dated 07.07.2018 passed by Family Court / Fast Track Court No.2, District Etawah in Case No.294 of 2015 (Smt. Priyanka Kumari versus Subodh Kumar), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Bharthana, District Etawah whereby trial Court allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no.2 and directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to his wife Smt. Priyanka Kumari.

¶5

Learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that revisionist is poor person and maintenance amount awarded by trial Court is of higher side and he is not in a position to pay so high amount.

¶6

Learned AGA supported the impugned order and opposed the revision.

¶7

Marriage of opposite party no.2-Priyanka with Subodh Kumarrevisionist is not disputed. It reveals from the impugned order that revisionist is the owner of twenty Bigha land, one residential plot in the village and he is running business, therefore, he is earning about Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶8

From perusal of impugned order, material available on record and having heard the learned Counsel for parties, I see no illegality or irregularity committed by the Court below in passing the impugned order. I also do not find any good ground to interfere in the same. No interference is warranted. The amount granted to opposite party no.2 does not appear to be excessive.

¶9

Revision is dismissed accordingly.

¶10

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶11

Certify this judgement to the lower Court immediately.

¶12

Order Date :- 9.12.2019 I.A.Siddiqui

Subodh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subodh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Naresh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anant Pandey and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sahab Singh and 4 Ors. Vs State of Up and Another

Usman Vs State of U.P. and Another

Atul Kumar Vs Smt. Shilpa

Yogendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others