Disposed

Yogendra Kumar @ Lablu v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Apr 2022CRLR/1407/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a criminal revision challenging an ex-parte maintenance order. The court directed the revisionist to deposit Rs. 30,000 within 18 days. Upon deposit, execution stays and the issue must be decided on merits by year-end; otherwise, execution proceeds under Section 128 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Revisionist directed to deposit Rs. 30,000 by 05.05.2022; upon deposit, execution stays and merits to be decided; otherwise, execution proceeds under Section 128 Cr.P.C.

Yogendra Kumar @ Lablu Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1407 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Yogendra Kumar @ Lablu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Saurabh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned A.G.A.

¶6

By means of the present criminal revision, the revisionist is assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 27.08.2021 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chitrakoot in case no.207 of 2019 under section 125 Cr.P.C., police stationMau, District-Chitrakoot whereby the court concerned has proceeded ex-parte and awarded Rs.3,500/- as maintenance amount from the date of application.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that after coming to know that the court concerned has proceeded ex parte, the revisionist moved an application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C. within time. The said application under section 126(2) Cr.P.C. is still pending.

¶8

On the other hand, the lady has moved an application under section 128 Cr.P.C. and recovery warrant has been issued to recover the amount of Rs.42,000/- from the revisionist vide order dated 15.03.2022.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that he was not aware of the proceedings though there is specific finding with the fact that vide order dated 27.08.2021, notices were duly served through the registered post and even after receipt of the notices, the revisionist has purposely avoided to file its reply to complicate the entire issue.

¶10

However, the court concerned is of the considered opinion that the matter should be decided on merits instead of deciding exparte.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist undertakes that his client would deposit Rs.30,000/- by 05.05.2022 before the court concerned. The said amount shall be disbursed in favour of opposite party no.2 and thereafter, the effort be made to decide the issue on merits. It is made clear that if the aforesaid amount

¶12

is not deposited by 05.05.2022, no time extension application would be entertained and the concerned court is directed to proceed with the case under section 128 Cr.P.C. unabated.

¶13

If the amount is deposited, then the execution proceedings shall be kept in abeyance. It is further directed that after deposit of the amount, the court concerned shall make necessary endeavour to decide the issue by end of this year on merits.

¶14

With the aforesaid observations, the present revision stands disposed.

¶15

Order Date :- 25.4.2022 Sumit S

¶16

Digitally signed by SUMIT SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.04.29 13:12:15 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yogendra Kumar @ Lablu v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar @ Lablu 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

Shahrukh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajendra @ Rajendra Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abhay Pratap (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Munni Devi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailendra Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P.

Kamal Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 11 Others