Dismissed

Gireesh Chandra v. the Prin. Judge Family Court Faizabad and Another

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2022/357/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a criminal revision against a maintenance order, the High Court upheld the family court's finding that the wife was legally wedded and entitled to support, dismissing the revisionist's ground of void marriage.

What did the court decide?

The revision was dismissed; the maintenance order dated 09-08-2012 was affirmed.

What the court decided

Gireesh Chandra Vs the Prin. Judge Family Court… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 357 of 2012

¶3

Revisionist :- Gireesh Chandra

¶4

Opposite Party :- The Prin. Judge Family Court Faizabad And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Mahfooz Alam,Aditya Narayan,Anurag Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Anand Dubey,Rajeev Narayan Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent and Sri Gajendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Anand Dubey learned counsel for respondent no. 2.

¶7

Present revision under sections 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure code against the Judgment and Order dated 09-08-2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, family Court, Faizabad in Case No. 270 of 1999, instituted by respondent no. 2 under section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from the revisionist.

¶8

The only contention which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the revisionist is that respondent no. 2 is not legally wedded wife of the revisionist.

¶9

Learned Principal Judge, Family Court after considering the pleadings and the evidence brought on record held that the marriage between the revisionist and respondent no. 2 took place on 08-05-1979. When the said marriage was subsisting, the revisionist performed the second marriage with one Kiran. The revisionist has accepted that his marriage with respondent no. 2 was performed in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals on 08-05-1979. The revisionist has not filed any petition before the competent court declaring the marriage with respondent no. 2 as null and void on the ground that his marriage was performed when he was a minor. In view thereof, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court has held that it cannot be said that respondent no. 2 was not a legally wedded wife of the revisionist. The revisionist has failed to maintain his wife and the respondent no. 2 was not in a position to maintain

¶10

herself.

¶11

It has further been held by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,Faizabad that the respondent no. 2 was living separately for a reasonable cause. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad by the impugned order has awarded maintenance to the wife @ Rs. 1500/-P.M. from the date of the submission of the application till the date of the decision of the case and Rs.3,000/- P.M. from the date of decision of the case. It has been further held that the amount of interim maintenance paid by the revisionist to the respondent no. 2 shall be adjusted against the arrears of the maintenance.

¶12

This court has considered the submissions as well as the impugned Judgment and order passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad and finds that the Principal Judge, Family Court has not committed any error of law or jurisdiction or fact in coming to the conclusion that respondent no. 2 is a legally wedded wife of the revisionist. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Faizabad by the impugned order has awarded meager amount of maintenance to the wife @ Rs. 1500/-P.M. from the date of the submission of the application till the date of the decision of the case and Rs.3,000/- P.M. from the date of decision of the case.

¶13

There is no ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 09-08-2012 passed by the learned Principal Judge, family Court, Faizabad in Case No. 270 of 1999. This revision is without merit, which is hereby dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 16.7.2022 AKS

¶15

Digitally signed by ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.16 19:01:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Gireesh Chandra v. the Prin. Judge Family Court Faizabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Gireesh Chandra v. the Prin. Judge Family Court Faizabad 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

Amit Kumar Prajapati (Raghav) and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Lko and Others

Mohd.Naushad and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Santhosh Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sabir Ali and Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Anr.

Annu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Arun Kumar @ Topilal and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko and Another