Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 107093 (ALL)

MINAKSHI SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

CRLRD/1872/2024 · 2025-02-07

Anish Kumar Gupta

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19067 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No. 495) Court No. - 53 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 1872 of 2024 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. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2024. 1. Heard Sri Yash Pratap singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Anil Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. Cause shown for delay in filing the instant petition found sufficient. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the application is allowed. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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 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. 6. For reasons aforesaid, the revision stands dismissed. Order Date :- 7.2.2025 Kirti (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) Digitally signed by :- SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad