Disposed

Sanjay Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024CRLRD/601/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court condoned 240 days delay in a criminal revision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. questioned the maintenance quantum ordered by Trial Court. The Court disposed of the revision on consent, directing petitioner to pay arrears in installments and future maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Delay condoned. Arrears payable in six installments; future maintenance fixed at Rs. 3,000/-provisionally on consent subject to compliance.

Sanjay Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:108444

¶2

Court No. - 43

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 601 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Sanjay Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Meenendra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Sushil Kumar

¶5

Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

(In Re : Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2024)

¶7

There is a delay of 240 days in filing the present criminal revision.

¶8

Heard Shri Meenendra Tripathi, the learned counsel for the revisionist, the learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Sushil Kumar, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 on the delay condonation application.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State as well as learned cousnel for the opposite party No. 2 have submitted that they have no objection if the delay is condoned.

¶10

Cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application appears to be sufficient and convincing.

¶11

Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed.

¶12

The delay is condoned.

¶13

(In Re : Order on memo of revision)

¶14

Heard Shri Meenendra Tripathi, the learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Sushil Kumar, the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and perused the record.

¶15

This revision has been filed by the revisionist (husband) against the judgment and order dated 26.04.2023 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Jalaun at Orai in Criminal Misc. Case No. 501 of 2020 (Smt. Deepa Devi Vs.

¶16

Sanjay Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun, whereby the learned Principal Judge directed the revisionist to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 (wife) as maintenance from the date of application.

¶17

Submission of learned counsel for the revisionist is that revisionist is a very poor person, having no source of income and he is unable to pay Rs. 3,000/- per month. He further submitted that the court below has not considered that the opposite party No. 2 is living separately from the revisionist without any reasonable ground, so she is not liable to get any maintenance from the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that after recording statements of both the contesting parties, without considering the entire facts and evidence on record, the learned court below has directed the revisionist to pay maintenance of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the opposite party No. 2 from the date of application. Learned counsel for the revisionist has tried to elaborate upon the economic circumstances of the revisionist and his other obligations and liabilities and has tried to show that fixation of such high amount is causing great hardship to the revisionist. Counsel has also sought to place his criticism against the impugned order on various other grounds touching upon the factual as well as legal aspects of the matter.

¶18

Per contra learned A.G.A. as well as the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 stated that the court concerned has passed the impugned judgment and order after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of the revisionist and opposite party no.2, in such circumstances to meet the ends of justice, the impugned order does not require any interference. There appears no illegality, impropriety and incorrectness in the impugned order and also there seems to be no abuse of court's process.

¶19

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that revisionist is ready to pay entire due amount of arrears and he also agrees that revisionist is ready to pay monthly maintenance amount to the opposite party No. 2 provided some relaxation may be granted.

¶20

At this stage, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submits that he has no objection if revisionist is ready to pay entire due arrears at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of application in six equal monthly installments and shall also pay continuously per month maintenance to the wife at the rate of Rs. 3,000/-.

¶21

On the above submission made by the learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2, the learned counsel for the revisionist shows his agreement.

¶22

In view of above consent given by both the rival parties, the present revision is finally disposed of on the following terms and conditions.

¶23

The revisionist shall continue to pay the entire due maintenance amount of arrears calculating the amount at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month from the date of application, i.e. 24.11.2020 in six equal monthly installments. The first installment be paid on or before 04.08.2024, second installment be paid on or before 04.09.2024, third installment be paid on or before 04.10.2024, fourth installment shall be paid on 04.11.2024, fifth installment shall be paid on or before 04.12.2024 and sixth installment shall be paid on or before 04.01.2025. The amount of maintenance already paid shall also be adjusted while calculating the amount of installment. Apart from the aforesaid, from the month of August, 2024 and onwards the revisionist shall pay Rs. 3,000/- per month to the wife as maintenance without fail on or before 10th day of every month.

¶24

It is clarified that in case the revisionist fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, as mentioned above, the interim relief regarding installment of arrears granted by this Court, shall automatically cancelled and the court below is at liberty to proceed regarding recovery of entire amount due in accordance with law.

¶25

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Mustaqeem.

¶26

Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sanjay Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Singh v. State of U.P. 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

Sarita vs State of Up

Km Arju Alias Jagrati vs State of U.P. and Another

Sartaj Ali vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Udaybhan Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Rakesh Chand and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another