Dismissed¶15

Minakshi Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2025CRLRD/1872/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Anish Kumar Gupta, J., decided 7.2.2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:19067) in CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. 1872 of 2024 - Minakshi Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another - dismissed revision challenging interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month awarded by Family Court, Gorakhpur; husband's income assessed from RBI salary slip (gross Rs. 75,124/-, net Rs. 44,425/-) against claimed income of over Rs. 1 lakh per month; interim order left undisturbed pending final maintenance determination on evidence; delay in filing condoned. No statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing condoned; no substantive relief to the revisionist - the impugned interim maintenance order of Rs. 10,000/- per month was left undisturbed. ¶15

Minakshi Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19067

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

(Sl. No. 495)

¶4

Court No. - 53

¶5

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1872 of 2024

¶6

Revisionist :- Minakshi Srivastava Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Birendra Singh,Yash Pratap Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶7

Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.

¶8

Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2024.

¶9

Heard Sri Yash Pratap singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

Cause shown for delay in filing the instant petition found sufficient. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the application is allowed.

¶11

The revisionist is aggrieved by an order dated 20.7.2024 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court no. 3, Gorakhpur whereby her application for interim maintenance was partly allowed and the revisionist was granted Rs. 10,000/- per month as interim maintenance.

¶12

Learned counsel for the revisionist claims that the income of the opposite party no. 2 is more than Rs. 1 lakh per month as he is working as Assistant Manager in the Reserve Bank of India; however, while awarding the interim maintenance the learned Family Court has taken into consideration the salary slip of the opposite party no. 2 of the month April, 2024, according to which the salary of the opposite party no. 2 is Rs. 75,124/- and after all the deductions the net payable amount as salary to the opposite party no. 2 is only Rs. 44,425/-. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded as interim maintenance.

¶13

Otherwise also, since it is only an interim order, the final order of maintenance is yet to be passed after appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. In view thereof, keeping this petition

¶14

pending would only amount to multiplicity of the proceedings which would be a further burden on the already burdened courts. In view thereof, this Court do not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order.

¶15

For reasons aforesaid, the revision stands dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Kirti

¶17

(Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶18

Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Minakshi Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minakshi Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases