SANGAM LAL GUPTA AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. DEPTT. OF HOME LKO AND ANOTHER
CRLR/274/2025 · 2025-03-05
Karunesh Singh Pawar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 126750 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 126750 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:13427 Court No. - 16 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 274 of 2025 Revisionist :- Sangam Lal Gupta And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Ashu Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA for the State. Notices to respondent no. 2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order. By this revision, the revisionists have prayed for the following relief:- Wherefore, it is, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the judgement and order dated 23.01.2025 passed by Additional and District Session Judge /FTC Second in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2023 bearing CNR No. UPFZ 010055402022 and order dated 14.07.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) FTC in complaint case no. 933/2022 titled as Priti Vs Tararani under section 12 of THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005. Perused the record. A perusal of the impugned order of the trial court dated 14.07.2022, it is evident that the revisionists were directed to pay Rs. 3,000/- as interim maintenance and to provide suitable living conditions in the house for their daughter-in-law (opposite party no. 2), ensuring arrangements for her residence within the same premises. It is undisputed that revisionist nos. 1 and 2 are the father-in- law and mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 and revisionist
no. 3 is her brother-in-law. They are residing in the same house. The allegation of committing domestic violence has been levelled in the complaint filed under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act. Considering all these aspects and objects of the Domestic Violence Act, the impugned order dated 14.07.2022, whereby Rs. 3000/- which is a very meager amount has been
directed to be paid as an interim maintenance, cannot be faulted with. The appeal challenging the impugned order was also dismissed by the the Appellate Court, after considering these aspects. There appears to be no illegality in the order impugned. The revision is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.3.2025 R.C. Digitally signed by :- RAM CHANDER YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench