Dismissed

Sachin Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2023CRLR/947/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Revision No. 947 of 2022, the Allahabad High Court dismissed the revision filed by a father challenging a Family Court order awarding Rs. 3,000 monthly maintenance to his minor daughter. Finding the amount too meager given the high cost of living and inflation, the Court held there was no illegality in the impugned order, warranting no interference.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision dismissed; no interference with the Family Court order awarding maintenance.

Sachin Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:197793

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 947 of 2022

¶4

Revisionist :- Sachin Pal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist : - Sanjay Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dev Prakash Sharma,Priyanka Devi

¶5

Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶6

List revised. No one is present on behalf of revisionist to press this revision.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist is not appearing for last several dates.

¶8

Heard learned A.G.A. for the State and Ms. Priyanka Devi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.

¶9

This criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 1.2.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mahoba in Case No. 36 of 2020 (Computer N. UMB 020002212020) (Km. Alish Pal Vs. Sachin Pal) by which the petition filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the revisionist was directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 as maintenance.

¶10

The record shows that the application filed by opposite party No.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was allowed by learned Family Court awarding maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 submits that the maintenance awarded by the learned Family Court in favour of minor daughter at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- P.M. cannot said to be excessive in any manner.

¶12

Admittedly, the revisionist is father of opposite party no.2, who is aged about three year and the revisionist being father is under obligation to maintain his daughter under any circumstance.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the spiraling inflation rate and high cost of living index,

¶14

the Court is of the view that maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3,000/per month in favour of the opposite party no.2, who is minor daughter of revisionist, cannot be treated to be on higher side rather it is too meager.

¶15

In view of the above, there is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference by this Court. No ground for interference is made out. The criminal revisionist filed by the revisionist is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed.

¶17

Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.10.2023 Kumar Manish.

¶19

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sachin Pal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Pal 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

Laik Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Wahid Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pushpendra Vs Smt. Jyoti

Chetan Bhatnagar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vishal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Varun Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others