Dismissed

Neeraj Maurya and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2024CRLR/294/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In criminal revision, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dismissed the challenge to an interlocutory order awarding interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. The court held that the affidavit format cited by the Supreme Court validated the filing and directed the Magistrate to decide the application already filed by the revisionist on merits.

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; Magistrate directed to pass orders on application filed by revisionist after hearing.

Neeraj Maurya and Another vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:25666

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 294 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Neeraj Maurya And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arshad Siddiqui,Anand Kumar,Devendra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

1. Heard Sri Arshad Siddiqui, the learned counsel appearing for the revisionists and Sri Abhishek Kumar Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.

¶7

2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the revisionists have challenged the validity of the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Lucknow in Appeal No.18661 of 2023 whereby the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.29, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.7335 of 2021 under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act awarding the revisionist to pay Rs.2,000/- per moth as maintenance to opposite party No.2 and to pay Rs.500/- per month to her minor son, was affirmed.

¶8

3. The revisionist's have not challenged the validity of the order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and it was provided in this order that the opposite party No.2 will not cause any delay in disposal of the case and in case any other material comes to light, the Court may modify/amend or vacate the order. The matter was ordered to be put up on 12.11.2022.

¶9

4. The learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the interim order dated 10.10.2022 is bad in law in compliance of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006.

¶10

5. The revisionists have not challenged the validity of the order dated

¶11

10.10.2022 before this Court, therefore, it is not open to the learned counsel for the revisionist to raise this ground.

¶12

6. Even on merits, Rule 7 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 provides that every affidavit for obtaining exparte order under sub-section (2) of section 23 shall be filed in FormIII. Opposite party No.2 has filed her affidavit in support of the prayer for grant of ex parte maintenance, although the same is not on the prescribed Form-III. However, this affidavit is on the format laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh vs Neha : (2021) 2 SCC 32, therefore, it cannot be said that the opposite party No.2 has committed any illegality in filing the affidavit on the format laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.

¶13

7. As the impugned order is interlocutory in nature and it is recorded therein that the order may be varied or amended or set aside in case some new material is placed before the Court, it is open to the revisionist to file a suitable application raising all their pleas before the Magistrate concerned.

¶14

8. The learned counsel for the revisionists informs that such an application has already been filed by the revisionists, therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The revision is dismissed .

¶15

9. However, it is observed that the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.29, Lucknow will pass suitable orders on the application filed by the revisionists in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

¶16

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 22.3.2024 prateek

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Neeraj Maurya and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Maurya and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mangal Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Sameer Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raj Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Others

Juvenile Delinquent 'a' Thru. His Mother Jannatun Nisha Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Ranjit Alias Ranjit Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another

Seema Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Home and 2 Others