Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 162268 (ALL)

ASHRAF KHAN v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO AND ANOTHER

CRLR/981/2025 · 2025-09-04

Saurabh Lavania

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 981 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Present revision has been field by the revisionist challenging the impugned order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Vth, Family Court, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 1551 of 2020 (Smt. Gauhar Bano and Others vs. Ashraf Khan), under Section 127(1) CrPC. 3. Considered the Annexure No. 4, a copy of the pay slip of the revisionist which indicates that the revisionist is employed with the Railways as a Lorry Driver Grade-I and his Basic Pay is Rs. 42,800/-, Dearness Allowance is Rs. 23,540/-, Transport Allowance is Rs. 5,580/-, Night Duty Allowance is Rs. 8,166/- and an Annual Dress Allowance is Rs. 6,250/- and also the various pronouncements regarding the grant of maintenance, including the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 and Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs. Rita Dey Chowdhury Nee Nandy: (2017) 14 SCC 200, according to which, 25% of the husband's net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the wife as also the fact that the Family Court has enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- on an application preferred by Opposite Party No. 2 under Section 125 CrPC. 4. After considering the aforesaid, on being confronted, the learned counsel Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Prem Kumar Verma, Shiv Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Ashraf Khan .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) for the revisionist submitted that he does not want to press this revision, and accordingly, the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. 5. To the aforesaid prayer, there is no objection. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed as withdrawn. September 4, 2025 Vinay/- CRLR No. 981 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench