Disposed¶13

Suraj Prakash @ Suraj Prakash Pandey v. Smt. Mamta Pandey

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2025CRLR/410/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Criminal Revision No. 410 of 2025; Alok Mathur, J.; interim order dated 16.4.2025; revision under Section 19 (4) Family Court Act against Family Court, Sultanpur maintenance order dated 19.02.2025 (Rs. 4,000 per month); wife allegedly previously married to Deepak Kumar Ojha with stamp-paper divorce; application under Section 19 Hindu Marriage Act; Arya Samaj Mandir marriage dated 10.05.2022; notice issued; matter listed for 27.05.2025; effect and operation of impugned order stayed.

What did the court decide?

Interim stay of the effect and operation of the impugned maintenance order dated 19.02.2025 until the next date of listing (27.05.2025); notice to the opposite party. ¶13

Suraj Prakash @ Suraj Prakash Pandey vs Smt. Mamta… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 410 of 2025

¶3

Revisionist :- Suraj Prakash @ Suraj Prakash Pandey Opposite Party :- Smt. Mamta Pandey Counsel for Revisionist :- Anil Pandey,Sanjay Kumar Bajpai,Trivendra Kumar Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Anil Pandey, learned counsel for revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

By means of the present criminal revision under Section 19 (4) of the Family Court Act the revisionist has challenged judgment and order dated 19.02.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No. 1644 of 2023 (Smt. Mamta Pandey Vs. Suraj Prakash Pandey) whereby the revisionist was directed to pay maintenance to opposite party.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for revisionist that opposite party Smt. Mamta Pandey is his wife having been married on 10.05.2022 as per Arya Samaj Mandir as per rites and ritual. It is further submitted that after the said marriage the revisionist came to know that opposite party was previously married to one Deepak Kumar Ojha but she had falsely informed the revisionist that she has obtained divorce from Deepak Kumar Ojha. It is further submitted that subsequently the revisionist came to know that the said divorce has been done on a stamp paper, which is not in accordance with law and the revisionist has filed an application under Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act to dissolve the said marriage.

¶8

It is further submitted that the revisionist has raised the

¶9

aforesaid objection before the trial court but the same was rejected at that stage stating that the the opposite party is legally wedded wife of revisionist and proceeded to grant the maintenance in favour of the opposite party for an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month.

¶10

The matter requires consideration.

¶11

Issue notice to opposite party. Steps to be taken within a week.

¶12

List this case on 27.05.2025.

¶13

Till the next date of listing the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 19.02.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sultanpur in Criminal Case No. 1644 of 2023 (Smt. Mamta Pandey Vs. Suraj Prakash Pandey) shall remain stayed.

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Virendra

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Suraj Prakash @ Suraj Prakash Pandey v. Smt. Mamta Pandey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Prakash @ Suraj Prakash Pandey v. Smt. Mamta Pandey

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

Rajeev Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Rajendra Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Vijay Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Bali Yadav @ Rambali and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. (Home) Lko. and 3 Others

Laung Sri vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another

Mohd. Aslam vs Additional Principal Judge-Ii, Family Court, Barabanki and Another