Partly allowed

Jarrar Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jul 2023/809/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court set aside the exorbitant cost of Rs. 50,000 imposed by the Family Court for condonation of delay. Instead, the court directed the total cost be converted into maintenance, with the appellant directed to deposit 50% of the amount.

What did the court decide?

Cost of Rs. 50,000 converted into maintenance; Appellant directed to deposit 50% of the total cost for release to Opposite Party No. 2.

Jarrar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:48856

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 809 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Jarrar Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Renu Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA

¶7

for the State.

¶8

Instant criminal revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act is preferred against the judgment and order dated 23.06.2023, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge-I, Family Court, Bahraich in Case No. 132/11/2023 under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., Police Station-Dargah Sharif, District-Bahraich, whereby cost of Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed upon the revisionist on the application moved under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and Rs. 25,000/- has been imposed as cost on the application under Section 126(2).

¶9

It is submitted that prior to the application moved under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C., opposite party no. 2 has moved an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 585 of 2011 which was compromised between the parties on 18.07.2012 and the compromise deed is annexed as Annexure No. 4 to the revision. It is submitted that, after

¶10

successful compromise, opposite party No. 2 agreed that no other legal action shall be taken against the revisionist after release of the amount of Rs. 11,000/-, however, opposite party No. 2 again filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 1452/11/2018 which was decided ex-parte against the revisionist on 12.11.2021. Against the said ex-parte order objection was moved under Section 126 Cr.P.C. along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. Learned family court, while allowing both the application, imposed cost of Rs. 25,000/- in each applications which is exorbitant and it is prayed to set-aside the order of imposing the cost.

¶11

Instant revision is moved only to the extent of the cost imposed, therefore, there is no need to sent summon to opposite party No. 2.

¶12

I have perused the materials brought on record.

¶13

It transpires from the record that case No. 585 of 2011 was decided on the basis of compromise arrived between the parties and later on after the compromise, application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 1452 of 2018 was filed for maintenance. It also transpires from the impugned order of the learned trial court dated 23.06.2023 that application of revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and under

¶14

Section 126 Cr.P.C. was allowed, therefore, revisionist has no grievance to this extent. The only grievance of the revisionist is the cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed upon him by the learned court below.

¶15

Considering the fact that learned court below imposed cost on the revisionist, that too of Rs. 50,000/- which is exorbitant and does not serve the purpose of law, therefore, the cost is converted into the maintenance and the revisionist is directed to deposit 50% of the total cost as the maintenance of the opposite party No. 2 that shall be released in favour of opposite party No. 2.

¶16

With the above observations, instant revision is partly allowed .

¶17

The amount so deposited shall be adjusted towards the payment of maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶18

(Renu Agarwal, J.)

¶19

Order Date :- 25.7.2023

¶20

Karan

¶21

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

Jarrar Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarrar Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

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

Revisionist Is Minor 'a' Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Abhishek Trivedi (X) Under the Gaurdianship of Father Anoop Trivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and 3 Others

Pradeep Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sunil Kumar Shukla Vs Smt.Pooja and Anr.

Smt.Israttulnisha @ Nuri and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Tara Chandra @ Tara Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another