Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 147145 (ALL)

MOHD. ISMAIL SHEIKH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. CIVIL SECTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER

CRLR/684/2025 · 2025-06-27

Pankaj Bhatia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:36697 Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 684 of 2025 Revisionist :- Mohd. Ismail Sheikh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Dinesh Kumar Mishra,Nripendra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed challenging the maintenance order dated 10.06.2025, whereby an amount of ₹3,000/- has been awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the amount of ₹3,000/- has been awarded despite the specific contention that the applicant was not the wife of the revisionist. The impugned order records that, in view of the contentions raised, two points of determination were framed by the learned trial Court—the first being with regard to the existence of a relationship of husband and wife between the parties. 4. The trial Court, after extensively considering the evidence adduced by both parties, recorded a specific finding that the defence taken by the revisionist was not acceptable. It further recorded that the parties were not only staying together as husband and wife, as recognized by society, but also took into consideration a sale deed of the year 1982. 5. The counsel for the revisionist tries to argue that the second wife of the revisionist was also having the same name. However, all such issues were duly considered and discussed in the impugned order. 6. Considering the fact that a detailed order has been passed after considering the evidence on record, no ground exists for exercising revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the said order, more so when the quantum of the award is adequate. No interference is called for. 7. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. (Pankaj Bhatia, J) Order Date :- 27.6.2025 A.Dewal Digitally signed by :- ASHISH DEWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench