Dismissed

Mohd. Parvez v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2024/1003/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision challenging an order by the Family Court, Gonda, that issued a recovery warrant for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court held that the petitioner's filing of a pending application under the Guardians and Wards Act did not constitute a valid ground to interfere with the family court order elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed; the recovery warrant remains effective.

Mohd. Parvez Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:65901

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1003 of 2024 Revisionist :- Mohd. Parvez Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Revisionist :- Amitabh Banerjee,Beebhu Banerjee Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for respondent no. 1 and Ms Jagriti Vardhan Rao, who has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondents no. 2 to 4.

¶7

At the very outset, Ms Jagriti Vardhan Rao, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 to 4 states on the basis of instructions given by respondent no. 2 that respondent no. 2 is not willing to go for mediation before mediation center of this Court for settling the dispute.

¶8

The aforesaid statement is recorded.

¶9

Under challenge is the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Family Court, Gonda in Criminal Case No. 463 of 2022 in re: Smt Johrabi and others vs Mohd. Parvez which is an order passed upon an application filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. upon which learned family court has issued a recovery warrant. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist was that the revisionist has every intention of keeping his wife and children with him. Considering the same, this court had issue notice to private respondents and today Ms Jagriti Vardhan Rao had stated that respondent no. 2 is not willing to go to reside with the revisionist and that private respondents are also not interested in any mediation.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to indicate any

¶11

infirmity in the order dated 31.08.2024 whereby a recovery warrant has been issued except stating that he has filed an application under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before the competent court, which is still pending for consideration.

¶12

The aforesaid ground cannot be considered to be a valid ground for not complying with the order of learned Family Court dated 09.03.2022.

¶13

Considering the aforesaid, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of learned Family Court.

¶14

Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed .

¶15

Let the amount of Rs 25000 under deposit before this Court be returned to the revisionist by the office as per rules within a week from today.

¶16

Order Date :- 23.9.2024 J. K. Dinkar

¶17

Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohd. Parvez v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Parvez v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Agrawal and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Vs Smt. Neetu

Raj Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Sharan Mishra vs U.P. Jal Nigam (Urban) Thru. Its Managing Director Lko and 2 Others

Aishwarya Batham vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Archana Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others