Partly allowed

Sanjay Srivastava @ Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024CRLR/905/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court addressed an appeal dismissed without applying mind to a ground regarding prior maintenance awards under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court stayed the impugned orders while directing the revisionist to continue payments under the Family Court award.

What did the court decide?

Stay of the judgment and order dated 28.06.2024 and the order dated 13.07.2023; directive to continue payment of Section 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance.

Sanjay Srivastava @ Sanjay Kumar Srivastava vs… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 905 of 2024

¶3

Revisionist :- Sanjay Srivastava @ Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Revisionist :- Durgesh Kumar Singh,Gaurav Tiwari

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

Issue notice to respondents no.2 and 3. Steps be taken within a week. List on the date to be indicated by the office in the notice.

¶10

The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that the respondent no.2 is his wife and respondent no.3 is his son.

¶11

An application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondent no.2 before the learned Family Court Lucknow vide Case No.1143 of 2021 in re: Jyoti Srivastava and another vs. Sanjay Srivastava. Learned Court vide order dated 02.07.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the revision, granted an exparte interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and 5,000/- per month respectively in favour of respondents no.2 and 3.

¶12

Placing reliance on the averments contained in paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit filed today it is contended that the revisionist is regularly paying interim maintenance as awarded by the learned family court to respondents no.2 and 3 and till date an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- has been paid.

¶13

At the same time, an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 2005') was filed by respondent no.2 on 09.09.2021 claiming maintenance.

¶14

Despite the objections having been filed by the revisionist indicating that the respondents have already received an amount under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the learned Court vide order dated 13.07.2023, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the revision, has awarded an amount of Rs.7,000/- to the respondent no.2.

¶15

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the appellate court duly indicating that the learned court has failed to consider the amount of maintenance which has been awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as would be apparent from perusal of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the appeal, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-6 to the revision, the learned appellate court has rejected the appeal without application of mind.

¶16

The contention of learned counsel for the revisionist is that there is specific provision contained in Section 26(3) of the Act, 2005 requiring of disclosure by the aggrieved person that in case any relief has been obtained by her in any other proceeding then the same has to be disclosed.

¶17

The argument is that although at the time of filing of the application under the provisions of the Act, 2005, the relief under Section 125 Cr.P.C.may not have been obtained by her but once the revisionist had taken the said objection before the learned court duly indicating grant of compensation under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and further while filing the appeal consequently it was the duty of the learned court to have discussed this fact instead of summarily dismissing the appeal.

¶18

Perusal of the order passed by the learned appellate court would also indicate that despite the revisionist having taken the said ground of an amount having been granted in favour of respondents no.2 and 3 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. yet the learned appellate court has failed to consider the said ground.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid, till the next date of listing, the judgment and order dated 28.06.2024 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.186 of 2023 as well as the order dated 13.07.2023 passed in Complaint Case No.4807 of 2021 (new case no.400 of 2023) under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 shall remain stayed. However, the revisionist would continue to pay the amount as awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to the respondents no.2 and 3.

¶20

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 A. Katiyar

¶21

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sanjay Srivastava @ Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Srivastava @ Sanjay Kumar Srivastava 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

Similar cases

Mohd. Rashid Akhtar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Kalim @ Mohammad Kalim Khan and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Omkar vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Mishrilal vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Raman Talwar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Juvenile X in Case Crime NO.83 of 2024 Thru. His Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others