Dismissed¶13

Shahar Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jul 2025CRLR/496/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:37342; CRIMINAL REVISION No. 496 of 2025; Shahar Alam vs State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench Court No. 12; Rajnish Kumar J.; order dated 02.07.2025; non-deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-; order dated 08.05.2025; modification order dated 20.05.2025; ten days further time; office report 04.06.2025; benefit of interim order withdrawn; revisionist not interested in settling matter; family court to recover maintenance amount; revision dismissed; counsel Julfikar Ahmad; G.A. for opposite party.

What did the court decide?

Since in spite of time granted twice the amount fixed by order dated 08.05.2025 was not deposited by the revisionist, he is not entitled to get the benefit of the order dated 08.05.2025. ¶10

Shahar Alam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:37342

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 496 of 2025

¶4

Revisionist :- Shahar Alam

¶5

Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Revisionist :- Julfikar Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶7

Parties are not present in Court in deference to the previous order passed by this Court.

¶8

As per the office report dated 04.06.2025, the revisionist has not deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- till date.

¶9

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist not deposited the aforesaid amount and prays for reducing the amount, whereas the application for modification of the order dated 08.05.2025 has already been disposed of by means of the order dated 20.05.2025, granting ten days further time to the revisionist to deposit the amount in pursuance of the previous order dated 08.05.2025 passed by this Court. In the order dated 08.05.2025 as well as the order dated 20.05.2025, it has been provided that in case the revisionist fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within the time prescribed, the benefit of the order shall not be made available to him.

¶10

In view of the above, since in spite of time granted twice, the amount as fixed by order dated 08.05.2025 has not been deposited by the revisionist, he is not entitled to get benefit of the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by this

¶11

Court. Even otherwise, the conduct of the revisionist in not depositing the amount and contention on his behalf recorded in the order dated 08.05.2025 shows that the revisionist is not interested in settling the matter. No other ground was argued on his behalf.

¶12

In view of the above, the family court concerned shall proceed to recover the amount of maintenance.

¶13

With the above observations, this revision is dismissed .

¶14

(Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 2.7.2025 dk/

¶16

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

Shahar Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahar Alam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanjay Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Aleem Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Ms.Super Cure Biotech Pvt.Ltd. through Authorized Neeraj Kumar Tyagi Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Avanish Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Manish Kapoor and 2 Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Mohd. Sami vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 2 Others