Disposed

Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Tinkoo Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2023/265/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condensed a delay of 1182 days in filing a criminal revision under the Family Courts Act. It disposed of the petition by directing the revisionist to pay the outstanding maintenance amount in three installments and continue future payments, allowing him to avoid pressing the case on merits.

What did the court decide?

Revision is disposed of; revisionist directed to pay outstanding Rs 2,75,000 in three installments and continue Rs 5,000/month.

Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Tinkoo Singh Vs State of U.P… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:50078

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 265 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Tinkoo Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Matri Datt Tripathi,Sartaj Ahmed,Shresth Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶7

(C.M.A. No. 1 of 2023)

¶8

This is the application for condonation of delay.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist was suffering from some economical crisis due to being some unavoidable circumstances in his family, due to which he could not file the revision within time.

¶10

Cause shown supported with affidavit is sufficient.

¶11

Delay is hereby condoned.

¶12

(Order on Revision)

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶14

The present revision U/s 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 has been filed by the revisionist against the impugned order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Barabanki in Misc. Case No. 292/2016, U/s 125 CrPC by which the revisionist has been directed to deposit the interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2, as well as against the order dated 23.3.2022 passed by the Additional Principal Judge-I, Barabanki in Misc. Case No. 827/2020, U/s 126(2) of CrPC whereby the application of the revisionist has been rejected without application of judicial mind along with application for condonation of delay.

¶15

It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has deposited Rs. 70,000/- as interim maintenance to his wife i.e. opposite party no.2 till date. It is further submitted

¶16

that the application of the revisionist moved U/s 126(2) CrPC was rejected by the court concerned and recovery citation been issued against the revisionist.

¶17

It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that he does not want to press the present revision on merits. There is no need to issue notice to the opposite party no.2. He may be permitted to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 2,75,000/- as interim maintenance in easy installments.

¶18

Learned AGA opposes the prayer of the revisionist on the ground that this revision is filed with a delay of 1182 days. However, he could not controvert the aforesaid facts.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶20

From perusal of the record, it transpires that in pursuance of the impugned order dated 16.2.2018, the revisionist has deposited Rs. 70,000/- to his wife i.e. opposite party no.2 and total Rs. 2,75,000/- is outstanding till today.

¶21

In these circumstances, the revisionist is directed to pay the aforesaid outstanding amount in three installments from the date of order and thereafter, he shall continue to pay Rs. 5,000/per month to the opposite party no.2 on 7th day of every month.

¶22

In view of the above, the instant revision is disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 31.7.2023 Shravan

¶24

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Tinkoo Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar Singh @ Tinkoo Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Yakoob Khan and Another Vs State of U.P.

Nand Kishore Thru. Father Raja Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Gautam Nishad Thru. His Mother Smt. Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 3 Others

Harnam @ Harinam Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 6 Others

Bhullar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Surendra Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Ors.