Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 123397 (ALL)

SHIV PRAKASH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND ANOTHER

CRLR/198/2025 · 2025-02-14

Karunesh Singh Pawar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9639 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 198 of 2025 Revisionist :- Shiv Prakash Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Sandeep Kumar,Shivendra Singh Suryavans Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent. In view of the proposed order being passed, notices to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 09.01.2025 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Barabanki in Case No.142/2021 whereby the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by opposite party no.2 was allowed. The operative part of the impugned order is extracted below:- " पपरररनन शनमतन ममतप ददवन कप पपररनप पत अनतररत धपरप 125 ८० प० सस० आसशशक रप सद सवनकपर शकयप जपतप हह। शवपकन शशव पकपश कक आददशशत शकयप जपतप हह शक यह पपररनप पत पसततत करनद कद शदनपसक सद इस शनररय / आददश कद शदननक तक आवदशदकप कक मत० 3000/-( रपयद तनन हजपर मपत) पशत मपह कक दर सद भरर- पकषर धनरपशश अदप करर तरप इस शनररय/ आददश कक शतरर सद भशवषय मर आवदशदकप कक मत० 6,000/- ( रपयद छछ हजपर मपत) भरर- पकषर धनपशश पशत मपह कक दर सद पतयदक मपह कक 10 तपरनख कक पदत करर। यशद शवपकन ऐसप करनद मर असफल रहतप हह वक आवदशदकप कक यह अरधकपर हकरप शक वह शवपकन सद यह धनरपशश नयपयपलय कद जररयद वससल कर सकद । शवपकन दपरप ददरपन मतकदमप पपरररनन कक यशद ककई अनतररम भरर- पकषर कक धनरपशश अदप कक रयन हह तक उसद भरर- पकषर कक धनरपशश मर समपयकरजत कक जपए।" A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is not in dispute that respondent No.2 is the legally wedded wife of the revisionist, she is destitute and incapable of maintaining herself and is residing away from the revisionist who has neglected to maintain her however, he has adequate sources of income to maintain her and also that respondent No.2 is legally entitled to get the maintenance from the revisionist. There appears to be no illegality in the order impugned hence, the revision being devoid of merits is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Saurabh Yadav/- Digitally signed by :- SAURABH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench