Allowed

Trinetranath Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Nov 2024/1356/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal revision filed to quash a maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court allowed the revision and quashed the impugned order because the parties voluntarily settled their dispute amicably through mediation, rendering the proceeding of no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment and order dated 07.11.2023 passed by the Family Court granting maintenance is quashed.

Trinetranath Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:75472

¶2

Court No. - 14

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1356 of 2023

¶4

Revisionist :- Trinetranath Mishra

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Another

¶6

Counsel for Revisionist :- Anurag Tyagi,Vikas Kumar Agrawal

¶7

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Baljeet Singh,Suneel Kumar

¶8

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶9

Heard Sri Vikas Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Suneel Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A. for State.

¶10

The instant criminal revision under Section 19(4) of Family Courts Act has been filed by the revisionist with a prayer to set aside the impugned judgment and order 07.11.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge-VIII, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No.940/2015 (Smt. Prasanna Pathak vs. Sri Netra Nath Mishra) by opposite party No. 2 for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶11

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that that vide order dated 04.07.2024, passed by a Co-ordiante Bench of this Court, the matter was referred to Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court to explore the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties. As per the mediation report, both the parties have entered into a settlement agreement dated

¶12

30.09.2024. The said settlement agreement has been signed by revisionist, Trinetra Nath Mishra and opposite party no.2, Smt. Prasanna Pathak along with their counsels. A copy of the said agreement is on record and annexed as Annexure No.E (flag 'M'). As per the settlement agreement, the revisionist and opposite party no.2 have amicably settled their dispute and buried the hatchet. In the aforesaid settlement agreement dated 30.09.2024, both the parties have decided to live separately in future and for the purpose of dissolution of their marriage, the parties have agreed to accept the decree for divorce passed in Regular Suit No.275 of 2014 by the Family Court, Varanasi under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

¶13

Learned counsel A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.2 have not disputed the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably through the process of mediation in the Mediation & Conciliation Centre of this Court by means of settlement agreement dated 30.09.2024. They have also not disputed the fact that the present dispute between the parties is an outcome of matrimonial dispute. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has also admitted that the fact that as one time alimony, an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Only) has been paid to the opposite party No.2. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has also admitted that the opposite party No.2 has received a

¶14

consolidated amount in lieu of maintenance granted to her by the learned Family Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 07.11.2023.

¶15

Learned counsel for the parties have also intimated that the first appeal bearing No. 594 of 2024 filed by the opposite party No.2 against the order of divorce granted in favour of the revisionist was also disposed of vide order dated 03.10.2024.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for parties and considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case and upon perusal of material on record, it appears that during pendency of the present criminal revision, parties have already settled their dispute voluntarily and amicably through the process of mediation by means of settlement agreement dated 30.09.2024 and a copy of the same is annexed as Annexure-E (flag 'M'). The dispute between the parties is an outcome of matrimonial dispute which has an overwhelming element of a private dispute between the parties. As such, on date, no difference exists between parties. The parties are living separately by mutual consent. This fact is admitted by learned counsel for the parties and is evident from para 6A of the Medication & Conciliation Centre, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Settlement Agreement dated 30.09.2024. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned

¶17

case. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order 07.11.2023 granting maintenance in favour of opposite party No.2 deserves to be set aside and the instant revision deserves to be allowed.

¶18

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order 07.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge-VIII, Family Court, Lucknow in Case No.940/2015, filed by opposite party No. 2 for maintenance, under Section 125 Cr.P.C is, hereby, quashed.

¶19

Consequently, the instant criminal revision stands allowed .

¶20

(Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.)

¶21

Order Date :- 13.11.2024 Shubhankar

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Trinetranath Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Trinetranath Mishra v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. 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

Gufran Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and Another

Vaishnav Upadhyay Alias Gudiya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Fauji Alias Om Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

X (Juvenile Delinquent) Thru. His Guardian Mother Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Sufiyan @ Arman Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another