Dismissed

Smt. Sonavati Mandal and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2019CRLR/370/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision against a maintenance award under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was examined. The court held that while the revisionist was absent, the appeal must be decided on merit. Quoting Supreme Court precedents, it noted revisional courts cannot reassess evidence. Finding no illegality, the revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; stay order vacated.

Smt. Sonavati Mandal and Others Vs State of U.P… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 17

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 370 of 1996 Revisionist :- Smt. Sonavati Mandal And Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- A.C. Nigam Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶3

Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶4

List has been revised.

¶5

Revisionists or their learned counsel is not present while learned A.G.A. is present.

¶6

Heard learned A.G.A. and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This criminal revision has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 13.12.1996, passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.452 of 1994 u/s 125 Cr.P.C. for the enhancement of the maintenance allowance by the court below and further directing the opposite party no.2 to pay the same from the date of application at the rate of Rs.300/- per month as maintenance allowance to opposite party no.1 and Rs.200/- each per month to her children.

¶8

In the case of Santosh vs. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 307 , it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that after admission of criminal revision, there is no procedure for dismissing the same in default and even if the revisionist is absent, the revision cannot be dismissed in default but it has to be decided on merit, so, this revision is decided according to its merit.

¶9

It was also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pravati Rani Sahoo vs. Bishnupada Sahoo (2002) 10 SCC 510 that in a revision against the order awarding maintenance by Magistrate u/s 125 Cr.P.C. revisional court has no power to reassess evidence and substitute its own findings. Under revisional jurisdiction, the questions whether the applicant is a married wife or divorcee, the children are legitimate or illegitimate being per-eminently questions of fact, cannot be reopened and the revisional court cannot substitute its own view.

¶10

After proper analysis of the evidence, learned Judge has awarded Rs.300/per month as maintenance allowance to opposite party no.1 and Rs.200/each per month to her children i.e. o.p. nos. 2 and 3. On perusal of the evidence available on record, it transpires that there is no illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgement and order. Finding is based on the appraisal of evidence on record. So, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Consequently, revision is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

Revision is dismissed. Stay order, if any, is vacated.

¶12

A copy of this order be transmitted to the learned court below for compliance within one month.

¶13

Order Date :- 25.1.2019 m.a.

Smt. Sonavati Mandal and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sonavati Mandal and Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shah Nawajuddin Vs State of U.P.

Atal Dixit and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Seema Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sardar Harminder Vs Madan Gopal

Shiv Sagar and Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Hamid Vs State of U.P.