Sanjeev v. Smt Mithlesh Devi
Case brief
What is this about?
Criminal revision concerning maintenance under Section 125 CrPC; notice to respondent could not be served at the given address. Court directed fresh notice on the respondent's current address as per her affidavit, extended interim order and listed for 30.4.2025.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2949 of 2024
Revisionist :- Sanjeev Opposite Party :- Smt Mithlesh Devi Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Chandra Sahu,Sanjay Kumar Pundir
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Learned counsel for the revisionist is present.
As per office report, notice issued to respondent no. 2 could not serve upon her as she was not found on the given address.
Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that notice was issued on the address given in memo of revision which is same address of respondent no. 2 given by her in application under section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as in her affidavit filed in compliance of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha.
On perusal of affidavit of respondent no. 2 filed before the court below in compliance of judgement of Rajnesh vs. Neha, her current address is shown as 208 Shekhpura-3, Khatauli, district Muzaffar Nagar and therefore, fresh notice be issued to respondent no. 2 on her current address 208 Shekhpura -3, Khatauli, district Muzaffar Nagar which would be returnable through CJM concerned at an early date.
List this case on 30.4.2025.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sanjeev
- respondent
Smt Mithlesh Devi
Coram
Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · February
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLR/2949/2024
All orders in this case
4 orders share this CNR
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court