Disposed

Nitesh Singh (According to Aadhar Card Nitesh Kumar Singh) v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2024CRLR/112/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revisionist sought stay of lump sum maintenance deposit imposed by Family Court. Court stayed the lump sum requirement pending mediation, but directed revisionist to continue paying monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000. Failure to pay monthly amount would vacate the stay automatically.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay granted on deposit of Rs. 30,000, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000 monthly maintenance. Case listed for mediation/compromise.

Nitesh Singh (According to Aadhar Card Nitesh… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 112 of 2024

¶3

Revisionist :- Nitesh Singh (According To Aadhar Card Nitesh Kumar Singh) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Pheran Dwivedi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA and perused the record.

¶6

This criminal revision under Section 19(4) of Family Court's Act has been filed against the order dated 2.11.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Bahraich in Case No. 424/11/2023 (Nitesh Singh Vs. Smt. Pooja Singh) by which the learned Trial Court has allowed the application 5A under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. and passed an ex parte order dated 21.2.2023 passed in Case No. 20/11/2022 directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 5,000/- as maintenance for her livelihood.

¶7

Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that there was matrimonial dispute between husband and wife, consequently, the opposite party no. 2 left her matrimonial home and filed a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the maintenance. The case was decided ex parte on 21.2.2023 thereafter the revisionist moved an application for restoration which was allowed on 2.1.2024. The court below while allowing the application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. directed the revisionist to deposit a lump sum amount of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- per month also as maintenance. The revisionist has challenged the aforesaid order of Trial Court in present revision.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist has further submitted that revisionist is ill and there are chances of amicable settlement between the parties, hence, the matter may be sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court to seek the possibility of compromise.

¶9

Learned AGA has no objection.

¶10

In view of above, only just to ascertain the willingness of opposite party no. 2 for the compromise, AGA is directed to communicate the opposite party no. 2 through S.H.O. concerned to appear before the Court on the next date of listing.

¶11

List this case on 26.2.2024.

¶12

Till the next date of listing, the condition of deposit of Rs.

¶13

30,000/- in favour of opposite party no. 2 as imposed in impugned order is stayed, however, the revisionist, till the pendency of the proceeding, shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party no. 2 in the first week of every English calendar month.

¶14

On that very date, revisionist as well as opposite party no. 2 shall present personally before this Court.

¶15

It is made clear that if the revisionist fails to pay the aforesaid maintenance amount within time as stipulated by the Court then in that case, the interim stay order, so granted, shall be vacated automatically.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.2.2024 AKK

¶17

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

Nitesh Singh (According to Aadhar Card Nitesh Kumar Singh) v. State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitesh Singh (According to Aadhar Card Nitesh Kumar Singh) v. State of U.P Thru. 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

Tara Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

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

Roshan Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Civil Secrett. Lko.

Shivam Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. U.P. Lko.

Rohit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Naveen Jayaswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Secrt. Lko.