In this criminal revision challenging a maintenance award, the High Court rejected the application for condonation of delay, finding the revisionist's financial destitution unsatisfactory and noting his illicit relationship. Consequently, the revision was dismissed.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:45951
Court No. - 29
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 409 of 2019
Revisionist :- Jitendra Kumar Opposite Party :- Shyam Kali And Anr. Counsel for Revisionist :- Sukh Deo Singh,Paritosh Shukla
Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.
(C.M.A No. 39061 of 2019: Application for condonation of Delay)
Matter is taken up. None appeared for the revisionist to press this application.
The revision under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act is preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.10.2018 passed in Case No. 2812 of 2014 whereby maintenance to the tune of Rs. 3,000 per moth has been awarded to the respondent No. 1 and Rs. 3,000/- per month. The revision is also supported by an affidavit.
The cause shown for the delay in filing the revision is financial destitute of the revisionist.
A perusal of record goes to show that revisionist had not taken steps for service of notice upon opposite party No. 2. It further transpires from impugned judgment that the revisionist entered into illicit relationship with another lady and he had thrown out the respondent No. 1 of his house. Learned trial court on
perusal of material available on record came to the conclusion that the revisionist is earning Rs. 9,000 per month and awarded maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month to his wife and 3,000 per moth to his daughter.
The order of the learned trial court is based on cogent reason and this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order which warrant interference by this Court.
Accordingly, the Court does not found the reason for delay in filing the revision to be satisfactory.
The delay condonation application is accordingly rejected.
(Criminal Revision)
Since delay condonation application is rejected, the revision also stands dismissed.
(Renu Agarwal,J.)
Order Date :- 14.7.2023 Nadeem
Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the cause shown for condonation of delay in filing criminal revision is satisfactory given the revisionist's financial status and conduct.
Whether the Family Court's award of maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month to the wife and daughter is sustainable and warrants interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jitendra Kumar
Shyam Kali
Anr.
Renu Agarwal
Nadeem Ahmad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
