Criminal revision against an interim maintenance order of Rs. 3,000 per month payable by the husband to his wife under the DV Act. The High Court found no illegality or impropriety in the magistrate's order, held the revisionist's defence could only be assessed after evidence was led, and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35701
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 284 of 2024
Revisionist :- Pavnesh Kumar Yadav @ Chintu Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
Supplementary Affidavit filed by learned counsel for the revisionist is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for respondent State as well as perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the revisionist is the husband of respondent no.2.
Learned counsel for the revisionist has disputed the incident alleged in the complaint dated 11.7.2021. He has made submissions in his defence and has submitted that the complaint is factually incorrect. It is also not disputed that there is no source of livelihood of the complainant. Considering these aspect learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Lucknow has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.3,000/- as an interim maintenance to respondent no.2. The finding recorded by learned court concerned is extracted below:-
" ससननतथनपतनवललकनपररशललनककयन।पतनवललककपररशललनसककवकदतहहतनहह ककपररवनकदनलदनरनधनरन-23 डल०वल०एकटकक * तहतअअतररमउपचनरककयनचनन ककगईहह।पररवनकदनलशलमतलकपयअकनयनदवऔरकवपकलसअ०-1 पवनकशकसमनर यनदवउररकचनटटककमधयपथमदषयनदनमपतयसअबअधहहननपररलककतहहतनहह, इस समबनधममककसलभलपकदनरनकहईखणडननहहककयनगयनहहबललकसवलकनरककयन गयनहहककपररवनकदनलतथनकवपकलसअ०-1 पकत-पतनलहह।पररवनकदनलककजलवनयनपनकनकहईशहतनहहहह।पकरणककतथययएवअपररलसथकतययकहदकखतकहहए कवपकलसअ०-1 कनयहदनकयतवहहतनहहककवहअपनलपतनलकनभरण-पहषणकरक। ऐसलदशनममकबननसनकयककगसणदहषपरगयक, नयनयनलयककरनयममपलकडतनकह कवपकलसकरपयन 3,000/- अअतररमभरण-पहषणकदलनयनजनननउकचतहहगन। तदन स नरअअतररमअनसतहषपनथरननपतआअकशकरपसकसवलकनरककयकजननकयहगयहह।
आदकशपनथरननपतअअतगरतधनरन-23 डल०वल०एकटआअकशकरपसकसवलकनरकरतक हहएकवपकलसअ०-1 पवनकशकसमनरयनदवउररकचनटटकहआद क शतककयनजनतनहहकक वहर० 3,000/- पकतमनहअअतररमभरण-पहषणककरपममपररवनकदनलकहददरनन मसकदमनयनइससअबअधममककसलअनयआदकशककपनररतहहनकतकअदनकरक।अअतररम गसजनरनभतनअअतररमअनसतहषपनथरननपतकककतथथसकदकयहहगन।पतनवललवनसतक सनकयकदनननक 23.02.2024 कहपकशहह।"
So far as the defence taken by the revisionist is concerned the same shall be considered and decided after the evidence are led by the parties and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. I find no illegality and impropriety in the order impugned, accordingly the revision is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.5.2024 Madhu
Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000 per month directed to be paid by the husband to his wife under Section 23 of the DV Act was legally sustainable.
Whether defence submissions disputing the complaint incident could be adjudicated at the interim stage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of U.P.
Respondent No. 2 (wife of revisionist)
Karunesh Singh Pawar
As recorded by the court registry
4 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
