Allowed¶7

Rahul Chaurasia v. Ritu Chaurasia

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2025A227/6290/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Article 227 petition No. 6290/2024: Rahul Chaurasia v. Ritu Chaurasia — trial court's 4.10.2024 order allowing application C-10 to add 'Nisha Nag' to 'Ritu Chaurasia' in S.125/S.125(3) CrPC maintenance matter held unlawful (initial S.125 application and order not corrected) and set aside; petition allowed; opposite party to seek remedy; Subhash Chandra Sharma, J., 27.1.2025. Keywords: name addition, correction of records, maintenance recovery, family court.

What did the court decide?

Trial court's order dated 4.10.2024 (application No. C-10 adding Nisha Nag to Ritu Chaurasia's name) set aside as unlawful; opposite party given an opportunity to seek remedy by first correcting the section 125 Cr.P.C application and then the order passed thereon. ¶7

Rahul Chaurasia vs Ritu Chaurasia — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's order dated 4.10.2024 allowing application No. C-10 to add the name Nisha Nag alongside Ritu Chaurasia's name was lawful, given that the initial application under section 125 Cr.P.C and the order passed thereon had not been corrected.

¶5

Court's answer

The application under section 125 Cr.P.C and the order passed thereon remain in the name of Ritu Chaurasiya with no mention of Nisha Nag, and the subsequent application under section 125(3) Cr.P.C likewise stands in the name of Ritu Chaurasiya with no mention of Nisha Nag.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Allowing application No. C-10 to add Nisha Nag to Ritu Chaurasiya's name, without first getting the name corrected in the initial application under section 125 Cr.P.C and the order passed thereon, cannot be said to be lawful, and the order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.

¶7

Key takeaways

The Article 227 petition is allowed, giving the opposite party an opportunity to seek remedy in the matter (by getting the section 125 Cr.P.C application corrected first and thereafter the order passed thereon corrected).ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Matters Under Article 227 No. 6290 of 2024, order dated 27.1.2025 by Subhash Chandra Sharma, J. Petitioner Rahul Chaurasia challenged the trial court's order dated 4.10.2024 whereby application No. C-10 of the opposite party (his wife, Ritu Chaurasia) was allowed to add the name 'Nisha Nag' alongside 'Ritu Chaurasia' in maintenance proceedings under sections 125 and 125(3) Cr.P.C. Finding that the initial section 125 application and the final order thereon, and also the section 125(3) recovery application, continued to stand in the name of 'Ritu Chaurasiya' alone with no mention of Nisha Nag, the Court held that adding the new name without first correcting the initial application and the order passed thereon could not be said to be lawful, set the trial court's order aside, allowed the petition, and gave the opposite party an opportunity to seek remedy (correction of the section 125 application and of the order).

¶1

Court No. - 14

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6290 of 2024 Petitioner :- Rahul Chaurasia Respondent :- Ritu Chaurasia Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Dubey,Abhishek,Amit Srivastava,Km. Saumya Tiwari

¶3

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶4

Sri Avanish Singh Parihar, Advocate, filed his Vakalatnama, on behalf of opposite party No.1, which is taken on record.

¶5

Learned counsel for both the parties are present. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite party Ritu Chaurasiya is his wife who filed an application under section 125 Cr.P.C before the learned family court and it was decided finally. Thereafter, an application under section 125(3) Cr.P.C was also filed for recovery of amount of maintenance. On 4.10.2024 an application No.C-10 was moved on the part of opposite party Ritu Chaurasiya that Nisha Nag be also added to her name Ritu Chaurasia and it was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 4.10.2024 which cannot be said to be correct unless an application under section 125 Cr.P.C and order passed thereon is corrected accordingly.

¶6

Learned counsel for the opposite party also agreed that an application under section 125 Cr.P.C be corrected first and then order be got corrected accordingly.

¶7

On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties as well as perusal of record, it appears that initially the application under section 125 Cr.P.C and the order passed thereon was in the name of Ritu Chaurasiya that still remain intact. There is no mention of Nisha Nag with the name of Ritu Chaurasiya. Now an application under section 125(3) Cr.P.C has also been moved in the name of Ritu Chaurasiya and there is no mention of Nisha Nag regarding which an application No. C-10 has been allowed by the learned trial court for adding Nisha Nag with the name of Ritu Chaurasiya without getting the name of Ritu Chaurasiya corrected in the initial application under section 125 Cr.P.C and the order passed thereon, therefore, the order passed by the learned court cannot be said to be lawful and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, giving an opportunity to the opposite party to seek remedy in this regard.

¶8

Order Date :- 27.1.2025.GS

¶9

Digitally signed by :- GHAN SHYAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Chaurasia v. Ritu Chaurasia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Chaurasia v. Ritu Chaurasia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Rais @ Rahees vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Mursheed @ Mo. Murseed and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Sonam Maurya Thru.Her Husband Ashish Maurya and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Snehlata Dwivedi (Corpus/Detenue) Thru. Her Husband Dilip Kumar Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mohd. Irfan Khan Thru. His Wife Smt. Neha Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Commissioner of Police, Lko and 6 Others

Snehlata Dwivedi (Corpus/Detenue) Thru. Her Husband Dilip Kumar Rawat vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others