The court dismissed a criminal revision challenging an interim maintenance order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court held that due to incomplete facts regarding subsequent proceedings and the meager maintenance amount, interference was not warranted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:18151
Court No. - 27
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 72 of 2024
Revisionist :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Surya Prakash Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Harsh Bugga, holding brief of Sri Surya Prakash, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Sri Anurag Verma, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record.
2. The instant revision is supported with an application seeking condonation of delay of 341 days in filing the revision under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act against the order dated 16.12.2022 passed by III-Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lahimpur Kheri in Case No.990 of 2019 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directing the revisionist to pay Rs.2000/- per month to opposite party No.2 as maintenance durig pendency of the suit under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
3. Impugned order provided that the matter be put up on 20.01.2023 for recording of the evidence. There is absolutely no averment regarding proceedings that were held on 20.01.2023 and thereafter till date. As the impugned order was an interim order and the same was subject to final order to be passed after the parties had adduced evidence in support of their respective case and there is nothing on record to show as to what subsequent proceedings have been taken, no interference can be made on the basis of incomplete facts placed before this Court. Even otherwise, the Family Court has awarded a meager sum of Rs.2000/-
per month as maintenance to opposite party No.2 and in these circumstances, issuance of notice to opposite party No.2 would cause undue hardship to her.
4. Accordingly, the revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed .
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)
Order Date :- 28.2.2024 prateek
Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision challenging the maintenance order is maintainable given the delay and incomplete record of subsequent proceedings?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Amit Kumar
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Another
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
