Dismissed

Braj Bhushan Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 May 2023CRLR/954/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging a Family Court order granting maintenance. The court held that maintenance must be awarded from the date of application, relying on Supreme Court precedents, thereby rejecting the revisionist's claim for retrospective effect from the order date.

What did the court decide?

No, maintenance must be awarded from the date of application as per Supreme Court precedent.

Braj Bhushan Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101388

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 954 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Braj Bhushan Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Jitendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Satendra Kumar Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Rai, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Jitendra Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Shahnawaj Akhtar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Satendra Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel representing complainant-opposite party 2.

¶7

This criminal revision has been filed challenging the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Pilibhit in Case No. 65 of 2015 (Smt. Suprabha Sharma Vs. Braj Bhushan Pandey) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Bilsanda, District-Pilibhit whereby aforementioned case has been allowed and consequently revisionist has been directed to pay monthly maintenance @ Rs. 4,000/- per month to opposite party 2 from the date of application.

¶8

The solitary ground urged by the learned counsel for revisionist in challenge to the impugned judgment and order is that court below has erred in law in awarding maintenance in favour of complainant-opposite party 2 from the date of the application. Resultantly, the order impugned in present revision is liable to be modified inasmuch as, court below ought to have awarded maintenance from the date of the order and not from the date of the application. The submission so urged before this court is wholly misconceived. The Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another (2021) 2 SCC 324 has categorically held that maintenance has to be awarded from the date of the application and not from the date of the order.

¶9

In view of above, the present revision fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

It is accordingly dismissed .

¶11

Order Date :- 10.5.2023 Vinay

¶12

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Braj Bhushan Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Braj Bhushan Pandey 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lullu Pasi Vs State of U.P.

H.C. Manoj Kumar Patel Vs State of U.P.

Rameshwar Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P.

Man Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anurag Gangwar Vs State of U.P.

Sher Singh vs State of U.P. and Another