Partly allowed

Vijay Dauneriya v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2024CRLR/469/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified an interim maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as it was self-contradictory by directing payment from both the date of application and the date of the order. The court clarified the effective date and directed a lump sum payment.

What did the court decide?

Order modified; revisionist directed to pay Rs. 3,000/month from 18.07.2023 and a lump sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by 11.12.2024.

Vijay Dauneriya vs State of Up and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176000

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 469 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Vijay Dauneriya Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Subhash Chandra Pandey,Sumit Kumar Gupta

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶7

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

¶8

The instant revision has been filed challenging therein the order dated 20.12.2023 passed in Case No. 967 of 2016 (Smt. Sulakshada Vs. Vijay Dauneriya) whereby, in exercise of power under proviso appended to Section 125 Cr.P.C., interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per-month had been awarded with effect from 18.07.2023.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that due to some confusion, in the operative portion of the impugned order dated 20.12.2023, the trial court has directed the revisionist to pay the interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- with effect from the date of application i.e. with effect from the year 2016.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has also argued that normally, interim maintenance awarded by the trial court has to be paid with effect from the date of passing of the order.

¶11

I have considered the arguments advanced by the leaned counsel appearing for the revisionist and I find that the operative portion of the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 is self contradictory. For ready reference, the operative portion of the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 is extracted as under:

¶12

" आददश

¶13

ययचचकयपयररनयपत 18 बवयसतदअनतररमभरणपपषणसवचकयरककययजयतयहह।कवपकच उतरदयतयकवजयददनदररययकपआददकशतककययजयतयहहककवहययकचकयकककदनयनक

¶14

18.07.2023 सदययचचससलकणयकप 3,000/- रपयदपकतमयहअनतररमभरणपपषणहदतस अदयकरर।पयररनयपतकककदनयनकसदआजकनणरयकककदनयनकतकबकयययभरणपपषणकक धनरयकश 3 ककसततमर 3 मयहमरमयससकभरणपपषणधनरयकशकदसयरअदयककजययदतरय पतयदकमयहककददयधनरयकशमयहकक 30 तयरचखतकददयरहदगच। पतयवलचवयसतदसयकयकदनयनक 8/1/24 कपपदशहप।

¶15

कदनयनक 20.12.2023

¶16

( कवकपनकसमयर -I) पधयननययययधचश पररवयरनययययलय , आगरय। "

¶17

This Court finds that there is categorical direction issued by the trial court, in the impugned order dated 20.12.2023, that the revisionist shall pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per-month with effect from 18.07.2023 but in the next line, further direction has been issued that interim maintenance shall be paid with effect from the date of filing of the application.

¶18

The direction issued by the trial court is self-contradictory, accordingly this revision is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 is modified to the extent, that the revisionist shall pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month with effect from 18.07.2023 and he shall also pay a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards interim maintenance to Opposite Party No. 2. The aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be in addition to the revisionist's liability to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- permonth with effect from 18.07.2023. The revisionist shall deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- before the trial court by 11.12.2024.

¶19

It is also provided that if the revisionist fails to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- and does not pay interim maintenance of Rs. 3,000/per-month to Opposite Party No 2 with effect from 18.07.2023, he will not be entitled for benefit of this order.

¶20

Order Date :- 11.11.2024

¶21

A. Mandhani

¶22

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK MANDHANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vijay Dauneriya v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Dauneriya v. State of Up and Another

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

Similar cases

Ram Sanehi Yadav vs U.P. Sahkari Gramin Vikas Bank Ltd. Lko. and 4 Others

Ikrar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Ansar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Nisha Singh vs Ashish Kumar Singh District Basic Education Officer Distt. Bahraich

Anil and 3 Others vs D.D.C District Hardoi and 4 Others

Vikash Sonkar vs State of U.P. and Another