Dismissed

Ram Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Aug 2023CRLR/2705/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging an order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 3400 per month to a wife and minor children under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court affirmed the lower court's order, noting no infirmities were revealed.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; order of lower court affirmed; parties made clear they remain at liberty to enter into compromise.

Ram Kailash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:155660

¶2

Court No. - 50

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2705 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Ram Kailash Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Himanshu Kumar,Gauri Dubey,Gautam Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Gauri Dubey, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A for the State-respondents.

¶7

Instant criminal revision has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 2.3.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Allahabad in Maintenance Case No. 430 of 2021 (Savita Devi and others Vs. Ram Kailash Yadav), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Bahariya, District Allahabad.

¶8

By the impugned order, learned court below has directed the present revisionist who is opposite party before court below to pay Rs. 2,000 maintenance to the applicant and Rs. 700/- to each of her minor children. Total amount of maintenance is Rs. 3400/- per month, which is payable from the date of filing of application for interim maintenance dated 24.8.2022. The arrears of maintenance from 24.8.2022 to 2.3.2022 is directed to be paid in three equal installments. The said order has been passed on application for interim maintenance moved by the applicant who is respondent no. 2 to 4 in present criminal revision.

¶9

From perusal of record, it appears that marriage of revisionist and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 18.5.2014. The relation between spouse became estranged in course of time and respondent no. 2 was shifted to her parental home where she is residing since 5.4.2021 along with her minor children. She filed an application for interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which is registered as Maintenance Case No. 430 of 2021. During pendency of said maintenance an application for interim maintenance was moved by the applicants which is allowed by the impugned order.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that out of court,

¶11

settlement has been arrived between the parties and no dispute has remained in between them. She further submitted that she is no more inclined to press present criminal revision and the same may be disposed of accordingly.

¶12

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that this criminal revision can only be decided on merits. He submitted that amount awarded in impugned order is on lower side and very reasonable and this is minimum amount that could be directed to be paid by the revisionist for sustenance of the respondents. Revisionist could not point out any infirmity, factual or legal error in impugned order passed by court below.

¶13

Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it appears that there is no factual or legal error in impugned order passed by court below and the same is liable to be affirmed. Accordingly, impugned order passed by learned court below is affirmed.

¶14

Revision stands dismissed, accordingly.

¶15

However, it is made clear that parties are at liberty to enter into compromise if good sense prevail between them and the factum of compromise may be brought before the court below for necessary action.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.8.2023 A.P. Pandey

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANAND PRAKASH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kailash Yadav v. State of U.P. 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

Smt. Laxmi Kumari @ Divyanshi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Pooja Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Rinki and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devman Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Shama and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gudiya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others