Disposed

Smt. Najrunnisha v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2022CRLR/3300/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court set aside an order dismissing a Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance application due to a cursory trial that skipped issues regarding the minor children's eligibility and lacked a proper evaluation of evidence. The matter was remanded for a fresh, reasoned decision after additional evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Principal Judge, Family Court Sonebhadra to be reopened and decided afresh after additional evidence.

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

¶1

Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3300 of 2018 Revisionist :- Smt. Najrunnisha Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Abou Sofian Usmani Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Mrs. Jyotsna Sharma,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Abou Sofian Usmani, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the lower court record.

¶4

None appears for the respondent no.2 despite service of notice.

¶5

This criminal revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 06.07.2018 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court Sonebhadra in Case no.15 of 2017 (Najrunnisha vs. Nisar Ahmad) whereby application moved under Section 125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance from opposite party no.2, Nisar Ahmad (her husband) for herself as well as her daughter Nikahat Parveen aged three years and son Manjar Ansari aged five month at the time of moving application, was dismissed.

¶6

Relevant facts giving rise to this criminal revision are as below:-

¶7

The revisionist Smt. Najrunnisha filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her husband Nisar Ahmad alleging that she is compelled to stay with her parents because of harassment meted out to her by her husband and that she as well as her children are being looked after by her father and that her husband, who earned Rs.45000/- per month from different resources, has been ignoring to maintain them.

¶8

After recording the evidence of both the sides and hearing of the arguments the application came to be dismissed by Principal Judge, Family Court Sonebhadra.

¶9

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the trial court drew a conclusion that wife has been living separately from her husband on her own free will, hence she is not entitled to claim maintenance. On the basis of this finding application was rejected.

¶10

Perusal of the record shows that the applicant applied for grant of maintenance not only for herself and also for her son and daughter allegedly living in her Maiyaka. It is alleged that

¶11

she and her children from this nuptial knot have been completely dependent upon her father and that they were being ignored to be maintained by her husband. Learned trial court has not written a word about the minor children who too were the applicants through her mother. It may be noticed that in the written statement filed before the trial court opposite party no.2 did not contradict the statement given in the application that kids were in fact living with the mother.

¶12

In para 13 of written statement it has been stated as below:-

¶13

" दफफा (13) यह ककि ब्यफान तहररीररी कितफाቔኋ आज भरी बततौर पत्नरी बफाकदनरी किक अपनने घर लने जफाकिर रखनने किक ततैयफार हतै लनेककिन वफाकदनरी किफा भफाई रूपयने लेने न किने ललए अडफा हहआ हतै और वफाकदनरी किक सससुरफाल नहरी जफानने दने रहफा हतै और वफाकदनरी अकिफारण हरी मफायकिने मम रह रहरी हतै। और दकनोሪ बच्चोሪ किफा भकवष्य बरबफाद किर रहरी हतै और अपनफा भरी किर रहरी हतै। "

¶14

From perusal of impugned order I cannot but observe that the matters in issue have been dealt with in a cursory and superficial manner to say the least. A very important issue of the eligibility of the kids for grant of maintenance has just been skipped over. It also appears that although the statements on oath as given by the parties have been reproduced in the judgement, however, no evaluation of evidence as expected has been done.

¶15

In view of the above observation, the impugned order is set aside and the criminal revision is disposed of subject to following conditions:-

¶16

Revisionist as well as opposite party shall be given opportunity to adduce additional evidence including on the point of grant of maintenance to their children.

¶17

The trial court, before opening the matter in the light of this order issue notice to the opposite party no.2 to appear and contest. After giving appropriate opportunity to both the sides the matter of grant of maintenance to the revisionist and her two children shall be decided afresh giving reasons.

¶18

Lower court record shall be returned to the concerned court.

¶19

Let copy of the order be certified to the court concerned by the office.

¶20

Order Date :- 10.11.2022 Asha

¶21

Digitally signed by ASHA Date: 2022.11.11 16:02:14 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Najrunnisha v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Najrunnisha 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

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

Yogesh Kumar 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

Umesh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ismail Ali Shah and Another Vs Principal Judge Family Court, Sonbhadra, Up and Another