This criminal revision challenged an order allowing the State's appeal which set aside maintenance grants under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court found no illegality in the impugned judgments and orders, thus dismissing the revision.
Revision dismissed; copy of order to be transmitted to Magistrate for compliance.
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. - 93
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2630 of 2001 Revisionist :- Smt. Khem Kunwar And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- V.C. Katiyar,Jaysingh Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
List has been revised.
Sri Jaysingh Yadav, learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Vibhav Aanand Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Lalitpur in Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2001 (Kamal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) by which learned trial court allowed the revision filed by the opposite party No.2 with costs and set aside the judgment and order dated 24.03.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (J.D.) Lalitpur in Case No. 182 of 2000 (Smt. Khem Kunwar and another Vs. Kamal Singh) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by which the revisionist No. 1 was granted Rs. 600/- per month and revisionist No.2 was gratned Rs. 400/- per month, as maintenance allowance till becoming major.
Sri Vibhav Aanand Singh submits that the present revision is of the year, 2001 and there appears no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and orders passed by the courts below, therefore, the present revision may be dismissed.
I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the appellate court as well as by the court below and also perused the record. I have also considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A..
In view of the above, after having gone through both the judgments and orders under challenge, this Court comes to the conclusion that the same need no interference as there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgments and orders under challenge, therefore, the present revision is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the present revision is dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned District and Sessions Judge for its onwards transmission to the concerned Magistrate for compliance who will proceed further in the matter.
The file is consigned to record.
Let the lower Court record, if any, be returned back to the concerned Court.
Order Date :- 7.3.2022
Arvind
Digitally signed by ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.03.08 14:05:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order allowing the state's revision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. involves any illegality or infirmity warranting interference.
Whether the lower appellate court and trial court acted properly in setting aside the earlier maintenance orders.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Khem Kunwar And Another
State of U.P. and Another
Shamim Ahmed
Arvind Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
