Dismissed

Abhishek Kumar Rastogi Alias Rinku v. Smt.Shraddha Rastogi Alias Roji and Anr.

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2022/958/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court condoned the delay in filing a criminal revision and heard a revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging a maintenance order. Finding no infirmity or error in the lower court's award, the revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. stands affirmed.

Abhishek Kumar Rastogi Alias Rinku Vs Smt.Shraddha… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 958 of 2019

¶3

Revisionist :- Abhishek Kumar Rastogi Alias Rinku Opposite Party :- Smt.Shraddha Rastogi Alias Roji And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Srivastava,Akhil Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Manohar Lal Syal,Shashi Kiran Arya

¶4

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

On C.M. Application No.83175 of 2019

¶6

Heard.

¶7

This application seeks condonation of delay in filing the revision.

¶8

Reasons indicated in the affidavit filed along with the application are sufficient.

¶9

Application is accordingly allowed and the delay in filing the revision is hereby condoned.

¶10

On Memo of Revision

¶11

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision even in revised call though the case has been listed peremptorily today. However, Sri G.D. Bhatt, learned AGA and Sri R.N. Singh, holding brief of Sri M.L. Syal, learned counsel respondent nos.1 and 2 are present.

¶12

Since this case is listed peremptorily today, the Court is proceed to decide the revision with the assistance of learned AGA and learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶13

The present revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act has been filed against the order dated 16.2.2019 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No.647 of 2014 filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C., whereby the learned Family Court has partly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶14

and awarded maintenance to them.

¶15

Learned Family Court after considering the evidence led by the parties and income of the revisionist, awarded maintenance @Rs.1,000/- per month to respondent no.1 and Rs.500/- per month to respondent no.2 from the date of filing of the application till the date of the order and the same was directed to be paid within one month from the date of the order. Thereafter, awarded the maintenance @Rs.3,000/- and Rs.1,500/- per month to respondent nos.1 and 2 respectively.

¶16

I have perused the order passed by the learned Family Court and find that the learned Family Court has considered the submissions made by the parties, evidence led by them and the income of the revisionist and has awarded the maintenance as mentioned above.

¶17

This Court does not find any infirmity, illegality or any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order, which warrants interference by this Court with the impugned order of awarding maintenance in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

¶18

The revision being without merit and substance, is hereby dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 4.8.2022 Rao/-

¶20

Digitally signed by CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO Date: 2022.08.04 18:35:43 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abhishek Kumar Rastogi Alias Rinku v. Smt.Shraddha Rastogi Alias Roji and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Kumar Rastogi Alias Rinku v. Smt.Shraddha Rastogi Alias Roji 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

Gunjeet Kaur and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Ghanshyam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Nooruddin Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi Shankar Ojha Vs State of U.P. Thru Addi. Chief Secty, Department of Home, Up Sectt, Lko and Another

Ankit Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P.

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