Dismissed

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2024/164/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two criminal revisions challenging interim maintenance orders under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the High Court held that since the inquiry into income was pending, the amount was not unreasonable. Dismissing both revisions, the court declined interference and allowed the Family Court to decide issues after evidence.

What did the court decide?

Revisions by Anil Kumar Singh and Smt. Anuradha Singh dismissed; original interim maintenance orders upheld.

Anil Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:17843

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 164 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Anil Kumar Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Avanindra Singh Parihar,Avanish Kumar Singh,Maitryee Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,K.K.Sharma And.

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 138 of 2024

¶6

Revisionist :- Smt. Anuradha Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Kaustubh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Order on Criminal Revision No.164 of 2024:

¶8

Heard Sri Avanish Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Abhishek Kumar, the learned State Counsel and Sri K.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

¶9

By means of the instant revision filed under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 05.01.2024, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family court, Court No.4, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.1119 of 2022: Smt. Anuradha Singh Vs. Anil Kumar Singh, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to his wife-opposite party no.2 as an interim maintenance and the

¶10

matter has been ordered to be taken up on 05.02.2024 for further orders. It appears that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is still pending and a final decision is yet to be taken after the parties are given opportunity to adduce evidence.

¶11

The order dated 05.01.2024 records that the applicant-wife claims that the revisionist had a hotel from which he earns Rs.6,00,000/- per month an he owns a pathology also, from which he earns Rs.12,00,000/- per month and she pray for award of Rs.1,00,000/- as interim maintenance. The revisionist opposed the application and claimed that he merely owns 6 % of share in the diagnostic centre and he earns only Rs.20,000/per month. The revisionist declined being owner of any hotel.

¶12

In the affidavit of assets and liabilities the revisionist showed his monthly expenditure about Rs.25,000/- per month from which the Family Court has drawn a conclusion that the revisionist has not disclosed the real income as a person earning Rs.20,000/- per month cannot spent Rs.25,000/- per month as expenditure.

¶13

The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revisionist lives with his father and his father supports him in bearing the expenses.

¶14

The opposite party no.2 filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith copy of a lease deed dated 30.08.2017, whereby the revisionist is said to have taken a building on lease for running a hotel-guest house.

¶15

As the income of the revisionist is a disputed question of fact, which is yet to be decided by learned Family Court after parties are given opportunity of hearing and considering status of the parties the amount awarded as an interim maintenance does not

¶16

appear to be so unreasonable as would call for interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The court declines to interfere with the order impugned and it is open to the Family Court to decide all the issues after the parties have availed opportunity of leading evidence and advancing submissions in support of their respective cases.

¶17

The revision lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶18

Order on Criminal Revision No.138 of 2024:

¶19

Heard Sri K.K. Sharma, the learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Abhishek Kumar, the learned State Counsel and perused the records.

¶20

By means of the instant revision filed under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act read with Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. the revisionist has challenged the impugned order dated 05.01.2024, passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family court, Court No.4, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.1119 of 2022: Smt. Anuradha Singh Vs. Anil Kumar Singh, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the opposite party no.2/husband has been directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to his wife-the revisionist as an interim maintenance and the matter has been ordered to be taken up on 05.02.2024 for further orders. It appears that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is still pending and a final decision is yet to be taken after the parties are given opportunity to adduce evidence.

¶21

The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the learned Family Court has directed the opposite party no.2/husband to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as interim maintenance which is insufficient for livelihood of the

¶22

revisionist-wife and prayed for enhancement of the maintenance amount.

¶23

As the income of the opposite party no.2 is a disputed question of fact, which is yet to be decided by learned Family Court after parties are given opportunity of hearing and considering status of the parties the amount awarded as an interim maintenance does not appear to be so unreasonable as would call for interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The court declines to interfere with the order impugned and it is open to the Family Court to decide all the issues after the parties have availed opportunity of leading evidence and advancing submissions in support of their respective cases.

¶24

The revision lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed .

¶25

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 27.2.2024 Ram.

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sultan Hussain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Afasar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. (Home)/Prin. Secy. (Home), Lucknow and 3 Others

Geeta Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home Deptt.

Smt. Anuradha Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Mohd. Faizan Khan and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Another