Disposed

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2024CRLR/41/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision challenged family court maintenance order. Court listed case for objections, suspended enforcement of maintenance against wife while requiring payments to child, noting counsel arguments on refusal to cohabit post-divorce decree.

What did the court decide?

Operation of maintenance order against opposite party no. 2 to remain in abeyance; order to pay opposite party no. 3 to comply.

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

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 41 of 2024 Revisionist :- Pawan Kumar

¶3

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Revisionist :- Satya Prakash Tiwari,Satya Prakash Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Satya Prakash Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Rishikesh Kumar Verma, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State.

¶8

By means of the instant revision filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 read with 125 (4) Cr.P.C, 1973, revisionist has challenged the validity of the judgment and order dated 11.10.2023 passed by the Additional Principal Judge (Family Court), Unnao in Case No. 346/2016 filed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C, ordering the revisionist to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month as maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 1,500/- per month to the opposite party no. 3.

¶9

The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the family court has narrated the defence of the revisionist in the order under challenge wherein it is stated that the opposite party no. 2 had left the matrimonial house of the revisionist and when the revisionist requested her to come back with him on 29.05.2016, he was abused and beaten up. The revisionist had filed a suit no. 674 of 2016 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharapur, which was decreed on 11.10.2017. When the opposite party no.2 did not resume co-habitation with the revisionist in spite of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights

¶10

he filed Suit no 107/2018 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act which was decreed on 08.07.2019 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saharapur by means of a judgment dated 08.07.2019.

¶11

Although subsequently the opposite party no. 2 filed an application under order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C, which has been allowed and decree of divorce had been set aside, this fact does not find mention in the impugned order dated 11.10.2023.

¶12

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the opposite party no. 2 did not resume co-habitation even after a decree for restitution of conjugal rights having been passed against her, which decree was not challenged by her and which attained finality. In these circumstances, the refusal of the opposite party no. 2 to live with the revisionist cannot be said to be justified and, therefore, her claim for maintenance is barred by Section 125(4) Cr.P.C, which provides that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for maintenance if she refuses to live with her husband without any sufficient reason.

¶13

The matter requires consideration.

¶14

Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 and 3 returnable at an early date.

¶15

The opposite parties may file objections, if any, within a period of two weeks.

¶16

List this case in the week commencing 19.02.2023.

¶17

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts of the case, it is provided that till the next date of listing, the operation and affect of the order dated 11.10.2023, so far as it directs the revisionist to pay maintenance to the opposite party no. 2, shall remain in abeyance. However, the revisionist is required to

¶18

comply with the order to maintenance to the opposite party no.3 in compliance of the aforesaid order.

¶19

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 17.1.2024 Preeti.

¶21

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

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sandeep vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko and 3 Others

Devwati and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lucknow

Ramsajeewan vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko.

Vikas Kori vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Guddu @ Riyaz Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow and 3 Others

Abdul Rajjak @ Khurram vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others