Dismissed

Amit Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC14 May 2024CRLR/521/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal revision filed by a husband challenging an order granting monthly maintenance to his destitute wife. The court noted the husband's lack of income affidavit as required by Rajnesh v. Neha and found no illegality in the lower court's decision.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision was dismissed as devoid of merit.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37050

¶2

Court No. - 15

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 521 of 2024 Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Dixit

¶4

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

¶5

Counsel for Revisionist :- Anoop Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶8

Notices to respondent no. 2 are dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

¶9

The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 03.04.2024 passed by the 1st Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, District Lakhimpur Kheri in criminal misc. case No. 148/2019 "Smt. Preeti Dixit Vs. Amit Kumar Dixit", whereby the application filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been allowed directing the revisionist to Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to respondent no. 2.

¶10

Perused the record as well as the impugned order dated 03.04.2024.

¶11

Perusal of the record shows that it is not in dispute that the revisionist and respondent no. 2 are husband and wife. Respondent no. 2 has no personal income so that she can maintain herself. She is a destitute. She has been residing away from her husband for sufficient cause. On the other hand, the revisionist is having a property/house in District Lakhimpur Kheri.

¶12

Upon a query being made by the Court that he has filed any affidavit showing his actual income in terms of the judgment of

¶13

the Supreme Court passed in the case of "Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324" , learned counsel for the revisionist has admitted that the revisionist has not filed any affidavit in terms of the judgment of Rajnesh (supra). He has also submitted that he is working in a shop of tire in District Lakhimpure Kheri from where he only gets some amount.

¶14

Considering all these aspects, learned court below has rightly allowed the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent no. 2 directing the revisionist to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to respondent no. 2.

¶15

I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. The revision being devoid of merit is dismissed accordingly. Order Date :- 14.5.2024 R.C.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amit Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home 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

Bal Mukund Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ajay Singh @ Lucky Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Mradu Bhawani Singh @ Mradu Bhawani Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Kapura Devi @ Kapuri Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Javed Khan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Amit Kumar Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another