Mehtab Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC8 Feb 2024/35/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the court rejected the application for condonation of delay. The court found the petitioner lacked due diligence and failed to disclose complete income details in the affidavit and the impugned order was legally sound.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay in filing revision is rejected; revision consigned to record.

Mehtab Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11587

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 35 of 2024 Revisionist :- Mehtab Ahmad

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pal Singh Yadav,Ashish Kumar Singh,Prathama Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

(Order on C.M.Application No. 01/2024)

¶7

Heard Smt. Prathama Singh, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing revision against the judgment and order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the Principal Judge (Family Court), Barabanki, in Criminal Case No. 969 of 2020, under Section 125 Cr.P.C, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 with effect from the date of the application and Rs. 12,000/- per month from the date of the judgment.

¶9

In the affidavit filed in support of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, it has been stated that the revisionist's counsel had not informed the revisionist about the order dated 17.08.2023 and when he came to know about the order, he contacted his counsel and obtained a certified copy of the order on 07.12.2023 and the same was provided to the revisionist in the second week of January, 2024. A bare perusal of the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 17.08.2023 annexed with the revision indicates that the application for obtaining the certified copy was given on 02.12.2023, the information of preparation of the certified copy was posted on the notice board on 07.12.2022 and the certified copy was received on the same date.

¶10

Although, the certified copy had been received on 07.12.2023, the revisionist contacted his counsel on 14.01.2024 and thereafter he provided the relevant documents to the learned counsel on 22.01.2024. Therefore, it appears that the revisionist has not acted with due diligence and he has not even disclosed the correct and complete facts in the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay.

¶11

Even otherwise, a perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the opposite party no.2 claimed that the revisionist is a government servant, earning about Rs.40,000/- per month. The revisionist did not disclose his income before the family court, which gives rise to a presumption that in any case the revisionist is not earning less than the amount claimed by the opposite party no.2 and in all probability, he earns more than Rs. 40,000/- and that was the only reason for the revisionist concealing his true income from the family court.

¶12

When the revisionist has not disclosed the complete facts in the affidavit correctly making out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay and when a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order indicates that it does not suffer from any illegality, there is no need to issue notice on the application for condonation of delay to the opposite party no.2.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the application under Section 5 of Indian Limitation Act in condonation of delay in filing the revision is hereby rejected.

¶14

Let the revision be consigned to record.

¶15

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶16

Order Date :- 8.2.2024 Preeti.

¶17

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mehtab Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehtab Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home 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

Raj Kumar Gautam Vs Smt. Kanti Devi

Km.Neha Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Sectt. Lko and Another

Smt. Farha Deeba @ Babli and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Deptt. Civil Sectt. U.P. Lko. and Another

Rohit Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Juvenile a Thru. His Mother Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Abdul Rauf Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another