Dismissed

Junaid v. State Of U. P. and another

Allahabad HC4 Aug 2023CRLR/4061/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal revision challenges an order awarding Rs. 5,000 monthly maintenance to a minor daughter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the revision, finding the revisionist slim evidence of poverty and holding the award just and proper for the child's well-being.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision is dismissed; the impugned order awarding Rs. 5,000 per month maintenance to the minor daughter is affirmed.

Junaid Vs State Of U. P. and another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 93

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 4061 of 2023

¶3

Revisionist :- Junaid Opposite Party :- State Of U. P. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Subodh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present revision has been filed for setting aside the order dated 03.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Moradabad, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 501 of 2020, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. (Yashveen Vs. Junaid), in which the application for maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. of opposite party no. 2 has been allowed, and revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month to opposite party no. 2 from the date of filing the application till the opposite party no.2 attains the age of majority. The minor daughter, who is arrayed as opposite party no.2 has filed the application for maintenance through her mother, the opposite party no.1 herein.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is a poor man with no source of income, and he is dependent on his parents for survival. The counsel further contends that the revisionist could pay Rs. 1,000/- per month only for the maintenance of her daughter, and except for the bald statement, no illegality has been pointed out by the counsel for the revisionist in the impugned order.

¶8

On perusal of the record, it transpires that the revisionist married to the mother of the opposite party no. 2 on 17.07.2017 as per Muslim rituals and customs. The opposite party no.2 was born out of the said wedlock on 31.05.2018. The revisionist worked as Accountant and contended that he had left the job, but no document, as such, has been filed by the revisionist to substantiate the facts stated by him. The revisionist is a bodily able man who is presumed to have sufficient income to maintain her minor daughter. The opposite party no. 2 (minor daughter), resides with her mother and both; mother and daughter have no source of income. They reside on rented premises and pay Rs. 2,000/- per month towards rent, and besides house rent, the opposite party no.

¶9

2 also has other miscellaneous expenses.

¶10

Hence, no interference is called for by this Court at this stage. The award of maintenance to the minor daughter, aged four years, of Rs. 5,000/- per month is just and proper for the physical and mental well-being of the child.

¶11

Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 4.8.2023 Ujjawal

¶13

Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL PARJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Junaid v. State Of U. P. and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Junaid 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

Om Prakash Gautam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Narain Raj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Parul Tyagi Vs Gaurav Tyagi

Sunil Kumar Gawaskar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rahul @ Gurujeet @ Panchabi Vs State of U.P.