Remanded

Ramu Prasad v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 May 2024CRLR/170/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interlocutory order in a revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging a maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court admitted the revision, stayed the lower court's judgment, and listed the matter for hearing on merits, noting the lower court did not properly consider the wife's refusal to cohabit and her educational qualifications.

What did the court decide?

Stay granted on the judgment and order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Family Court, Raebareli.

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

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 170 of 2024 Revisionist :- Ramu Prasad

¶3

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Revisionist :- Satya Prakash Mishra,Brijesh Kumar

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Satya Prakash Mishra the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rishikesh Verma, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State and Sri Rakesh Kumar Maurya. the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶8

The revisionist- Ramu Prasad is present and he made a request for the matter being referred to Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court.

¶9

The learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 opposed this request and she stated that as the efforts for settlement of the disputes through mediation have filed at an earlier occasion, the opposite parties are not willing for mediation. Therefore, the court proceeds to examined the merits of the case.

¶10

By means of the instant revision filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, the revisionist has challenged the validity of the judgment and order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the court of III- Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Raebareli in Criminal Case No. 620/2018( Smt. Dipika and others Vs. Ramu Tiwari) under Section 125 Cr.P.C, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife- opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 2,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 3 from the date of application i.e 09.11.2020.

¶11

The Family Court had framed five points for determination. The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the point no.2 formulated by the family court i.e. whether the opposite party no2. is residing separate from the revisionist without any sufficient cause and point no.3, whether she is capable of maintaining herself, have not been decided properly. The revisionist had stated that in his evidence led before the family court that he had made efforts to bring the opposite party no.2 back to her matrimonial but he could not succeed.

¶12

While deciding the aforesaid point, the family court has not given due consideration to the fact that in her crossexamination, the opposite party no.2 stated that she visited the revisionist's home on 3-4 occasions and in all, she stayed there about 5-6 months. She had left her matrimonial home for the last time on 15.11.2016. Although, she alleged that the revisionist has illicit relations with some other girls, she did not give any particulars in this regard. Although, she alleged that her husband intending to marry some other lady, she did not give any particulars in this regard also. She stated that the revisionist has about 2 Bighas land, which fact is not disputed by the revisionist. She further stated that she does not put vermilion (sindoor) on her head as her husband does not treat her to be his wife. In response to a question that she is a post graduated and whether she made any efforts to find a job, she did not give a categorical reply and she merely stated that she does not know to operate computer and, therefore, who would employ her.

¶13

The submissions of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the parties got married on 26.04.2016 and even as per the statement of the opposite party no.2, she visited the revisionist's home on 3/4 occasions only and she had left her matrimonial home on 15.11.2016. He has submitted that the revisionist had

¶14

made efforts to bring the opposite party no.2 to his house, which efforts failed becasue of non-cooperation of the revisionist. In these circumstances, having no other option, the revisionist has filed a suit under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶15

The refusal of the opposite party no.2 to live with the revisionist is not for any sufficient reason, as is apparent from the aforesaid facts of the matter.

¶16

The matter requires consideration.

¶17

Admit

¶18

Summon the lower court record.

¶19

List this case in the week commencing 15.04.2024.

¶20

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts of the case, it is provided that till the next date of listing, the judgment and order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the court of III- Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Raebareli in Case No. 620/2018( Smt. Dipika and others Vs. Ramu Tiwari) shall remain stayed.

¶21

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶22

Order Date :- 6.3.2024 Preeti.

¶23

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

Ramu Prasad v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu Prasad v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Narain vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Lko. and Others

Murlidhar and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Cane Development/Sugar Industries Lko. and 7 Others

Sanjeev Singh @ Lal Bahadur Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Bhupendra Singh Visen vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Nagar Vikas, Deptt. Lko and Another

Rajvanshi Yadav vs Sri Suhas L.Y. Dir. General, Prantiya Rakshak Dal / Vikas Dal Avam Youth Welfare Directorate, Lko.

Bhupendra Singh Visen vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Nagar Vikas, Deptt. Lko and Another