In Criminal Revision No. 2878 of 2018, the Allahabad High Court examined a challenge to an order granting interim maintenance of Rs.3000 per month to a minor daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revisionist argued the order was based on surmises. Finding no adequate grounds for interference, the court dismissed the revision.
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. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2878 of 2018
Revisionist :- Avinash Agarwal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Seemant Singh,Pankaj Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sandeep Kumar Tiwari
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Heard Sri Shiv Kumar holding brief of Sri Pankaj Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Sandeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and Sri Mayank Mishra, learned AGA for the State.
This criminal revision has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 20.7.2018 passed by Additional Family Judge / Additional District Judge, Room No. 5, Allahabad in Case No.304 of 2015, whereby Rs.3000/- has been awarded to the opposite party no.2 per month for maintenance on application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of revisionist does not dispute the marriage between the revisionist and Smt. Neha Maheshwari and parentage of opposite party no. 2 but submitted that trial court has wrongly allowed the application under Section 25(Kha) moved by appellant-respondent no. 2 (under the guardianship of Smt. Neha Maheshwari). The impugned order is based on surmises and wrong appreciation of fact.
Despite repeated quarry, learned counsel for the revisionist could not show any good ground so as to enable the Court interfere in the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned AGA for State supported the impugned order and submitted that the order was passed by lower court is good and not liable to be set aside.
From perusal of impugned order, material available on record, it appears that respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad seeking maintenance from revisionist on ground that she is his minor daughter but having sufficient means, he neglected and refused her and not paying any maintenance. During the pendency of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., an application paper no. 25(Kha) was made by her for grant of
interim maintenance which was allowed by trial court vide impugned order dated 31.8.2015, directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 3000/- per month as interim maintenance subject to final decision of case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.12.2019 Manoj
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should intervene in the Family Court's order granting interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Whether the revisionist failed to establish good grounds to challenge the lower court's maintenance award.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of U.P.
Smt. Neha Maheshwari
Rajendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
