Dismissed

Rohit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jun 2024CRLRD/208/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) rejected an application for condonation of delay in filing a revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court. The court held the affidavit insufficient due to non-disclosure of the date of knowledge. It also reasoned that interim orders are modifiable in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Application for condonation of delay in filing revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court rejected.

Rohit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:42440

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 208 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Rohit Kumar

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another

¶6

Counsel for Revisionist :- Anumesh Mishra,Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari

¶7

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶8

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶9

Heard Sri Anumesh Mishra, the learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Mukesh Singh, the learned A.G.A appearing on behalf of the State.

¶10

This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court against an order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the Principal Judge (Family Court), Lucknow, in Case No. 609/2023, filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs.6,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the opposite party no. 2. The matter was fixed for 22.01.2024 for filing written statement and for recording evidence of the parties on 25.01.2024

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay, it has been stated that the impugned order is an ex-parte order and immediately upon gaining knowledge of the order, the revisionist took steps for challenging the order but the date of acquiring knowledge of the order has not been disclosed in the affidavit.

¶12

In absence of the date of knowledge of the impugned order, the revisionist has not given sufficient explanation for delay in

¶13

filing the revision.

¶14

Moreover, the order dated 23.11.2023 is merely an interim order and it is open for the revisionist to appear before the Family Court and seek modification of the order after placing the complete facts and evidence in support thereof and after filing his affidavit of assets and liabilities in light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha; (2021) 2 SCC 324.

¶15

Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the revision is rejected without issuing notice to opposite party no.2.

¶16

The rejection of this application will not affect the right of the revisionist to appear before the trial court and seek modification of the ex-parte interim order dated 23.11.2023 in accordance with law.

¶17

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 4.6.2024 Preeti.

¶19

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

Rohit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dileep Rajput Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Chand Babu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Home Lko and 3 Others

Mateen Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Smt. Beenu Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Suraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.