Dismissed¶14

Girish Chandra Patwa v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2025CRLR/35/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S. 125 Cr.P.C. maintenance; criminal revision dismissed; legally wedded wife destitute, entitled to maintenance; neglect of minor child; book shop with sufficient sources of income (issue no. 4); S. 329 Cr.P.C. application rejected 29.10.2024 and unchallenged — unsound mind plea not pressed; Rs.4000/- per month maintenance; Rs.86,000/- already paid; summary proceedings pending since 2016, decided 13.12.2024; Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; Girish Chandra Patwa.

What did the court decide?

None to the revisionist; the revision having been dismissed, the Family Court's direction to pay Rs.4000/- per month maintenance stands. ¶14

Girish Chandra Patwa Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the revisionist; the revision having been dismissed, the Family Court's direction to pay Rs.4000/- per month maintenance stands.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no. 2, the legally wedded wife of the revisionist, is entitled to receive maintenance from the revisionist, who has neglected to maintain her and his minor child while running a book shop with sufficient sources of income. +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

It is not in dispute that respondent no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist; the revisionist has neglected to maintain respondent no. 2 and his minor child; she is destitute and unable to maintain herself; the revisionist runs a book shop and has sufficient sources of income, and respondent no. 2 is entitled to receive the maintenance.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The plea that the revisionist is of unsound mind cannot be pressed by him, as his application under Section 329 Cr.P.C. has already been rejected by the order dated 29.10.2024, which he has not challenged.

¶13

Key takeaways

The revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance under S. 125 Cr.P.C. — Criminal Revision dismissed. Revision by Girish Chandra Patwa against order dated 13.12.2024 of Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur directing him to pay respondent no. 2, his legally wedded wife, maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month from the date of her Section 125 Cr.P.C. application filed in 2016. Court below had found respondent no. 2 destitute and unable to maintain herself, and the revisionist running a book shop with sufficient sources of income (issue no. 4), entitling her and his minor child to maintenance. Plea that the revisionist is mentally retarded / of unsound mind could not be pressed: his application under Section 329 Cr.P.C. stood rejected by order dated 29.10.2024, which he admittedly never challenged. Till date he had paid only Rs.86,000/- towards maintenance. Revision devoid of merits — dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1852

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 35 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Girish Chandra Patwa Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Syed Amir Hasan,Afaq Zaki Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned AGA for the State.

¶7

Notices to respondent no.2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

¶8

This revision has been filed against the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by Third Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur by which the revisionist has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- per month from the date of filing of application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Perused the record.

¶10

Perusal of the record shows that it is not in dispute that respondent no. 2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist. The revisionist has neglected to maintain respondent no.2 and his minor child. She is destitute and is unable to maintain herself. The revisionist is running a book shop and has sufficient sources of income which has been decided while deciding issue no.4 by the learned court below and the respondent no.2 is entitled to receive the maintenance.

¶11

Record further shows that a case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by the respondent no.2 in the year 2016. These are the summary proceedings, however a case could be decided only 13.12.2024 and as per the submission of learned counsel for the revisionist till date he has paid Rs.86,000/- only.

¶12

So far as the argument of learned counsel for revisionist that the revisionist is mentally retarded is concerned, he has filed application under Section 329 Cr.P.C. which has been rejected vide order dated 29.10.2024. Learned counsel for the revisionist has fairly submitted that he has not challenged the order dated 29.10.2024. Therefore, the plea that the revisionist

¶13

is of unsound mind cannot be pressed by him as the application under Section 329 Cr.P.C. has already been rejected by the aforesaid order which has not been challenged by the revisionist.

¶14

The revision is, thus, devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Renu/-

¶16

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Girish Chandra Patwa v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Chandra Patwa v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Another

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

Raj Kapoor Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Juvenile X Thru. His Father Y Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and Another

Mohd. Sultan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Amit Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Sahdeo Singh and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Law and Justice Lko. and Another