In a criminal revision challenging a High Court order, a financial transaction involving a disputed property was examined. The issue centered on whether the transaction constituted a valid mortgage under prevailing legal standards, requiring a detailed analysis of the parties' rights.
N/A
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 84
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1774 of 1998
Revisionist :- Anil Albert Opposite Party :- Smt. Renu Dayal Counsel for Revisionist :- R.S. Chauhan,S.S. Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.K Srivastava
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
It is not a 'mere travesty of justice' but a 'huge travesty of justice' that this court has not been able to decide present criminal revision for last 24 years despite the issue involved, is trivial in the nature so much as that there is a challenge to the amount of maintenance granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the opposite party No.2 (wife of applicant) by order dated 29.09.1998 passed by the Family Court, Jhansi being Rs. 1000/only.
'Travesty of justice' 'perpetuated' when this Court passed an interim order on 06.10.1999 that said order shall remain stayed on condition that revisionist shall pay half an amount (Rs. 500) regularly, but there is nothing on record to show whether the said amount is being regularly paid or not, even counsel for revisionist has no instructions though in a tagged application, recovery warrant is under challenge but there is no interim order.
Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Chaurasia holding brief of Sri S.S. Sharma, learned counsel for revisionist. He is not able to convince the Court about any illegality in impugned order, which may be interfered under limited jurisdiction of criminal revision, otherwise also, Rs. 1000/- is a meager amount, considering present price index as well as it is admitted case of revisionist that he is a worker with Railways. Therefore, revision petition is sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
The opposite party No.2 has suffered due to 'laxity' of this Court that failed to impart 'speedy justice' to her, which is nothing but 'miscarriage of justice', therefore, following the principle that 'justice is not only done but must also be seen to be done', it is directed that Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid to the opposite party No.2 from the account of State Legal Services Authority within a period of 8 weeks from today.
The revision stands disposed of .
Order Date :- 29.9.2022 Nirmal Sinha
Digitally signed by NIRMAL SINHA Date: 2022.09.29 18:07:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Dowry amount is correctly assessed under the Evidence Act 1872?
Whether the transaction involving the disputed property constitutes a valid mortgage under Indian law?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Albert
Smt. Renu Dayal
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
