Dismissed

Yogesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 Nov 2022CRLR/1489/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision against an interim maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as no sufficient ground for interference was found.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1489 of 2015 Revisionist :- Yogesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Chandra Prakash Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt.Advocate

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶4

Case called out in the revised list. None appears for the revisionist and respondent no. 2. Learned AGA for respondent no. 1 is present.

¶5

Perusal of the ordersheet shows that the revisionist was absent on the previous two dates i.e., 24.08.2021 and 29.09.2021. It is also revealed that the revisionist did not comply with the order of this Court passed on 30.04.2015.

¶6

This criminal revision has been filed by Yogesh Kumarhusband against the State of U.P. and Smt Rashmi, his wife with the prayer to set aside the order dated 18.03.2015 passed by the Family Court, Kannauj in Case No. 1052/12/13 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Smt Rashmi vs. Yogesh) whereby the Family Court directed the husband to pay Rs. 2,000/- by the 10th of every month to his wife Rashmi, as interim maintenance.

¶7

Heard learned AGA. As none appears on behalf of the revisionist, hence, I perused the papers on record as well as the memo of revision for the purpose of finally deciding this revision. Before I refer to the grounds taken by the revisionist, it may be noted that by order dated 30.04.2015 passed by this Court, the revisionist-husband was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- within two weeks for initiating a dialogue between them and to settle the matter through the services of Mediation Centre of this High Court, however, the revisionist did not comply the order and the sum of Rs. 15,000/- was never deposited, therefore, the interim protection was vacated by an order dated 03.08.2015. The perusal of the ordersheet also reveals that the revisionist is not appearing in this case since last more than a year now.

¶8

The contention of the revisionist, in brief, are that the objections filed on his behalf was not taken into consideration by the trial court and that the trial court passed the order of interim maintenance without application of judicial mind ignoring the evidence on record.

¶9

It may be noted that only an order of interim maintenance

¶10

was passed and not final one under the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C. in favour of the wife. It also appears that both sides were heard by the court concerned. There is nothing in the order which can substantiate the grounds taken by the revisionist. The order is speaking and reasoned. I do not find any good ground to interfere the same, hence, the revision is dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 9.11.2022 Vik/-

¶12

Digitally signed by VIKRAM GUPTA Date: 2022.11.10 17:29:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yogesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Yogesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

X Juvenile (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

X(Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile -X Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu Lal Alias Tarak Nath Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Juvenile (X) Vs State of U.P. and Another

X Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others