Dismissed

Ajay v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC12 Mar 2019CRLR/919/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision was filed against a Family Court order rejecting the husband's application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Court upheld the lower court's finding that contradictions in witnesses' statements are insufficient grounds for impugning proceedings or mandating cohabitation, dismissing the revision for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 919 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Ajay Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Puneet Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA.

¶6

The present revision has been preferred by the revisionist under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 16.2.2019 passed by Judge Family Court/Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Court No.3, Moradabad in Case No. 463 of 2017/ 264 of 2017, whereby the application dated 31.1.2019 of the revisionist (husband) has been rejected.

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. initiated by the respondent no.2 (wife) against the revisionist (husband), statements of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have already been recorded but there are several contradictions in their statements, ergo, only conclusion can be drawn that they have not come with the clean hand before the Court. On the basis of the said facts, the revisionist (husband) moved an application dated 31.1.2019 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to allow the said application and reject the proceedings of Case No. 463 of 2017 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. with further direction to the opposite party no.2 to live with the revisionist in her matrimonial house.

¶8

On perusal of impugned order dated 16.2.2019, I find that the Family Court has rejected the application of the revisionist on the ground that there is nothing on record to indicate that any forged document has been filed from the side of opposite party no.2 (wife) and the application under section 340 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable only on the ground of contradictions in the statement of witnesses. So far as further relief sought in the application that a direction be issued to the opposite party no.2 (wife) to live with the revisionist (husband) cannot be issued, under the facts and circumstances of the present case, on the application dated 31.1.2019 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. of the revisionist. I find that the reasons recorded by the Family Court is sound reasons and there is no manifest error of law or perversity in the impugned order dated 16.2.2019, as such, the same is not required to be interfered by this Court.

¶9

The revision lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶10

Order Date :- 12.3.2019 AK Pandey

Ajay v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay 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

Shariq Ali Khan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ratiram and 02 Others Vs State of Up and Another

Mohammad Shanu Vs State of Up

Prashu Ram and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rahul Vs State of Up and Another

masuk ali and 3 others Vs state of up and another