Disposed

Mahtab Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Feb 2024CRLR/137/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge considered a criminal revision petition challenging a Family Court order awarding maintenance. Due to insufficient evidence determining the applicant's income, the judge decided to issue notice and stay the impugned order conditionally until the next hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order stayed conditionally; notice issued to respondent op. no. 2.

Mahtab Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 137 of 2024

¶3

Revisionist :- Mahtab Ahmad

¶4

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Alok Kumar Srivastava,Kamal Kishore Tewari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶8

Present revision has been filed to set aside the impugned judgement and order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Court No.1, Family Court, Lucknow in Criminal Case No.618/2014, u/s 125 Cr.P.C., in the interest of justice and equity.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that though there is nothing on record to presume the income of the applicant is between Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- as he is a labourer but the court below while awarding the maintenance directed him to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to opposite party no.3.

¶10

Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that even if the person is able-bodied even then he is liable to maintain wife and children, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

¶11

Considering the aforesaid submission and on perusal of record, it appears that there is no evidence on record to determine the income of the applicant between Rs.8,000/to Rs.10,000/-.

¶12

Therefore, matter requires consideration.

¶13

Issue notice to opposite party no.2 returnable at an early date.

¶14

List in the week commencing 11.03.2024.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Court No.1, Family Court, Lucknow, shall remain stayed, provided the applicant will continue to pay Rs.3,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.1,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 and also pay the entire arrears of maintenance till date, in pursuance of the impugned order.

¶16

Order Date :- 12.2.2024

¶17

S.Chaurasia

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM CHAURASIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mahtab Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahtab Ahmad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko and 2 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

Similar cases

Rajpal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Bhagwati Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Kanhaiya Lal Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Raghvendra Bind vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lucknow and 3 Others

Shanti Prakash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Azaad vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others