Awanish Kumar v. State of Up and Another
Case brief
What is this about?
Single brief order in Criminal Revision where the High Court was informed the appellant is not aggrieved by the current maintenance but only by the retrospective portion. Notice issued and matter listed for disposal.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 388 of 2024
Revisionist :- Awanish Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
- Heard learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State.
- Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist, at the very outset, has submitted that the revisionist is not aggrieved by the award of maintenance of Rs.3000/- per month in favour of Opposite Party No.2 with effect from the date of order i.e. 16.12.2023 but he submits that the excessive amount of maintenance i.e. Rs.2500/per month had been awarded with effect from the date of application i.e. with effect from 20.1.2015, though there has been no delaying tactics on the part of the revisionist.
- Matter requires consideration.
- Issue notice to Opposite Party No.2, returnable within six weeks.
- List this matter on 10.1.2025.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appellant is aggrieved by the maintenance amount awarded retrospectively from the date of application.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Awanish Kumar
- respondent
State of U.P.
Coram
Manjive Shukla
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/388/2024
All orders in this case
3 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court