Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 115720 (ALL)

VIKAS YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. (HOME) DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER

CRLRD/11/2025 · 2025-01-10

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:1928 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 11 of 2025 Revisionist :- Vikas Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Savitri Arya,Alka Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. (Application for condonation of delay) Heard Sri Prashant Kumar, holding brief of Ms. Alka Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist on the application for condonation of delay. On due consideration to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the revision is condoned. (Order on memo of revision) This revision has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 09.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Sitapur in Criminal Case No.697 of 2023 by which application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party no.2 has been allowed partly and the revisionist has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- per month to her. A perusal of the record shows that it is not disputed that respondent No.2 is legally wedded wife of the revisionist. She is destitute. She is residing away for sufficient cause. She was subjected to cruelty relating to demand of dowry. She is unable to maintain herself and residing with her parents. On the other hand, the revisionist has 80 bighas of agricultural land and also is doing business of food grains and thus he has sufficient source of income and has neglected to maintain his wife. Record further shows that a case under Section 125 C.P.C. was filed on 26.05.2023. The summons were served upon the revisionist as well as publication was made in the newspaper. Revisionist did not appear before the trial court. Thus, in view of the discussions made herein above as also perusal of the impugned order, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Order Date :- 10.1.2025 Renu/- Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench