Dismissed

Smt. Mamta Tickku and Another v. Prabhat Narain Tickku and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2019CRLR/352/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble Court dismissed the criminal revision filed against an order under Section 127 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the lower court, after appreciating the evidence regarding the respondent's salary, acted within its jurisdiction and the impugned order is perfectly legal without any irregularity or jurisdictional error.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Mamta Tickku and Another Vs Prabhat Narain… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 352 of 2004 Revisionist :- Smt. Mamta Tickku And Another Opposite Party :- Prabhat Narain Tickku And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- P.K. Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶2

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶3

List has been revised. None appeared on behalf of the revisionists.

¶4

This revision has been filed against the order dated 6.1.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No. 96 of 2013 with the prayer to allow this revision and enhance the maintenance allowance from Rs.3000/- per month to Rs.12500/- per month with effect from the date of application under Section 127 Cr.P.C.

¶5

The main ground of the revision is that the learned lower court below failed to record any specific finding as to the income of the respondent, which was a condition precedent for fixing the quantum of maintenance of the revisionist that the opposite party is in government service and getting salary per month and that the trial court's observation that income of respondent is fluctuating between Rs.8901-13621 per month is illegal, invalid and without any basis. It is also stated that salary statement filed by the respondent through paper 24 C is not a public document nor proved on record and the learned lower court relying upon it illegally decided the maintenance application by awarding meagre amount of maintenance. The respondent is a high ranked Navy Officer and his living standard is high and the revisionists are also entitled to the same. Learned lower court did not consider this and illegally passed the impugned order denying the same to the revisionists and as such this revision is liable to be allowed.

¶6

On perusal of the record, it appears that the lower court after appreciation of the evidence regarding salary and looking in the facts and circumstances, decided the maintenance application accordingly there is no jurisdictional error in the order of the learned lower court. The order of the court below is perfectly legal. There is no irregularity in the order of the learned Family Court, the revision is devoid of merits and is dismissed accordingly.

¶7

Order Date :- 23.1.2019 Ashutosh Pandey

Smt. Mamta Tickku and Another v. Prabhat Narain Tickku and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Mamta Tickku and Another v. Prabhat Narain Tickku and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Prakash and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Gyan Chand and Another Vs State and Another

Bal Kishan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaspal Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another