Disposed

Dr Sanjay Kansal v. State of Up Others

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2024CRLR/1828/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision regarding maintenance, the single judge upheld the operation of the impugned order that awards Rs. 20,000/month. However, stayed the said award pending receipt of a counter-affidavit from the woman entitled to maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Stayed the implementation of the maintenance award of Rs. 20,000/- pending receipt of a counter affidavit from Opposite Party No. 2.

Dr Sanjay Kansal vs State of Up Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 87

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1828 of 2024

¶3

Revisionist :- Dr Sanjay Kansal Opposite Party :- State Of Up Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Girijesh Kumar Gupta,Shiv Shankar Pd Gupta

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

As per report available in the order sheet notice on Opposite Party No. 2 had been served but no one is present on her behalf.

¶8

It has been contended on behalf of the revisionist that Opposite Party No. 2 is a doctor and is earning Rs. 1,05,000/- per month. It has further been contended that Opposite Party No. 2 herself has admitted her income before the trial court but even then, under the impugned order dated 21.8.2023, maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month had been awarded in her favour.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has vehemently argued that the trial court in the impugned order dated 21.8.2023 had recorded a finding that the revisionist's monthly income is Rs. 2,00,000/- and further Opposite Party No. 2 had admitted before the trial court that her monthly income is Rs. 1,05,000/- therefore, there could not have been any occasion for the trial court to award maintenance in favour of Opposite Party No. 2.

¶10

It has further been argued that Opposite Party No. 2 is capable of maintaining herself at the standard of life which she would have availed if living with her husband.

¶11

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and prima-facie, I find force in the said arguments.

¶12

Matter requires consideration.

¶13

Let counter affidavit be filed by Opposite Party No. 2 within a period of three weeks.

¶14

List this matter on 16.1.2025, in top ten cases.

¶15

Till the next date of listing, operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and order dated 21.8.2023, to the extent it provides for maintenance of Rs. 20,000/- per month to Opposite Party No. 2, shall remain stayed.

¶16

Order Date :- 22.11.2024 Gaurav

¶17

Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr Sanjay Kansal v. State of Up Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Sanjay Kansal v. State of Up Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Yogesh Kumar vs State of Up and 2 Others

Raees Pradhan and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Anash vs State of Upand Another

Tauseef Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harpal Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhan Allah vs State of Up