Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2023/390/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against orders under Section 125 and 126 Cr.P.C. dismissing maintenance claims. Revisionist failed to appear. High Court found no illegality, irregularity, or sufficient ground for interference, noting the opposite party is poor and separate residence was noted. Revision dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; copy of order transmitted to the learned trial court.

Shiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:46014

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 390 of 2017

¶4

Revisionist :- Shiv Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satyendra Kumar Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶6

Matter is taken up. None appeared for the revisionist to press this revision. Learned A.G.A for the State is present.

¶7

From the record it appears that the revision is filed against the order dated 08.11.2012 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D)/ Judicial Magistrate, Sitapur in Misc. Case No. 1330/2010 under Section 125 Cr.P.C and order dated 22.02.2017 passed by Principal Judge Family Court, Sitapur in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1059 of 2014 under Section 125 (3) Cr.P.c and also against order dated 22.02.2017 passed by Principal judge Family Court Sitapur in Crl. Misc. Case No. 2737 of 2014 under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C.

¶8

It transpires from the record that application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C has been rejected and recovery warrant was issued for the recovery of maintenance amount. It also transpires from the record that opposite party No. 2 is a class IV employee . It is further submitted that the amount of maintenance awarded to the opposite party i.e. 2500 per month is too excessive. Opposite party No. 2 is residing separately from her husband. It

¶9

further transpires from the record that Family Court has directed the CMO to deduct the maintenance amount from the salary of the revisionist to be deposited in the bank account of the opposite party No.2.

¶10

There is nothing on record to show that the impugned orders suffers from any illegality, irregularity, warranting interference. The opposite party No.2 is a poor lady and no good ground has been disclosed in the instant revision warranting interference in the impugned orders.

¶11

The revision is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the learned trial court concerned for necessary information and compliance.

¶13

(Renu Agarwal,J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 14.7.2023 Nadeem

¶15

Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar 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

Sudip @ Bauwa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and another

Anoop Kumar Gadariya Vs the State of U.P.

Bhagauti Prasad Vs State of U.P.

Jitendra Kumar Vs Shyam Kali and Anr.

Vijay Shankar Sharoj Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Virendra Singh @ Virendra Pratap Singh @ Babbu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another