Dismissed

Mohd. Shamim Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC26 Mar 2019CRLR/972/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., the High Court declined to disturb an interim maintenance order of Rs. 10,000/month. Finding no evidence of perversity against the lower court, the Bench refused relief but directed the Family Court to conclude the pending maintenance case within six months.

What did the court decide?

Relief sought in the revision is refused; Court directs Family Court to conclude pending case within six months.

Mohd. Shamim Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 972 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Mohd. Shamim Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Akhil Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the revisionist is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the materials available on record.

¶7

This Criminal Revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the revisionist (husband) against the order dated 21.12.2018 passed by Principal Judge (Family Court) Kannauj in Maintenance Case No. 181/12 of 2018 (Apsana vs. Mohd Shamim Ahmad) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month to opposite party No. 2 (wife) as interim maintenance.

¶8

Assailing the impugned order dated 21.12.2018, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that in fact the revisionist is Auto Driver and the finding recorded by the Principal Judge (Family Court) regarding the monthly income of the revisionist is against the evidence on record, therefore, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- as interim maintenance awarded against the revisionist is not sustainable.

¶9

After hearing the argument of learned counsel for the revisionist and perusing the record, I find that there is no material on record to substantiate that the finding recorded by the Family Court in the order dated 21.12.2018 are against the evidence on record. Since, the proceeding of case No. 181/12 of 2018 (Apsana vs. Mohd Shamim Ahmad) is still pending before the Family Court, therefore, it would not be appropriate to record any finding in the matter.

¶10

At this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 21.12.2018, as there is no perversity or illegality in the order dated 21.12.2018 apparent on the face of record, and as such, the relief as claimed by the revisionist through this instant revision is refused.

¶11

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

¶12

the Principal Judge (Family Court) Kannauj is directed to conclude and decide the Case No. 181/12 of 2018 (Apsana vs. Mohd Shamim Ahmad) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the parties concerned. The revisionist shall not take any adjournment in the proceedings of aforesaid case and shall make sincere efforts to get the aforesaid proceedings concluded within the time bound period as mentioned above.

¶13

With this direction, the revision is disposed of.

¶14

Office is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned for compliance.

¶15

Order Date :- 26.3.2019

¶16

Sumaira

Mohd. Shamim Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Shamim Ahmad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Maya Devi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Purshottam Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Anuj Tiwari and Another Vs State of Up and Another

Monu Yadav @ Satyendra Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Rajendra Prasad Vs State of Up and 7 Others

Ram Niwas and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another