This criminal revision against a maintenance award under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The High Court held that the impugned order did not suffer from jurisdictional error, material irregularity, or illegality, finding the awarded amount justified and reasonable.
The criminal revision petition 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:106937
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2277 of 2023
Revisionist :- Suresh Kumar Bind Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Shailendra Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
[Krishan Pahal, J.]
Order Date :- 16.5.2023 Vikas
Digitally signed by :- VIKAS VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order awarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. suffered from jurisdictional error or illegality warranting revision.
Whether the trial court erred in fixing maintenance amounts considering the revisionist's lack of income versus the respondents' earnings.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Suresh Kumar Bind
State Of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
