Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 165677 (ALL)

DINESH KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME, LKO AND ANOTHER

/488/2025 · 2025-09-23

Saurabh Lavania

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL REVISION DEFECTIVE No. - 488 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J. (Order on Criminal Misc. Application for condonation of delay/I.A. No.1 of 2025) 1. Findings the grounds/reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay to be sufficient as also that the application in issue has not been opposed, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. 2. The delay in filing the criminal revision is condoned. (Order on the Memo of Revision) 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. The present criminal revision has been filed seeking following main relief(s):- "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit and allow the revision and set aside the judgement and order dated 22/04/2025 passed by the Principal Judge Family Court, district Bahraich in criminal case 103/11/2024 (Smt. Mithilesh Kumari ...vs... Dinesh Kumar) u/s 125 Cr.p.c." Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Ram Phal, Divya Singh, Neelam Kumari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dinesh Kumar .....Revisionist(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 3. The challenge has been made only on the ground that the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed after the decree of divorce was granted. 4. The ground aforesaid is not sustainable in view of pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vimala (K.) Vs. Veeraswamy (K.), (1991) 2 SCC 375 and Rohtash Singh Vs. Ramndri & others, (2000) 3 SCC 180, according to which a divorced woman is entitled to claim maintenance from the person of whom she was once the wife unless she suffers from any of the disability indicted under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C., which has not been pleaded in the instant case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. 5. For the aforesaid, the present criminal revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. September 23, 2025 ML/- CRLRD No. 488 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Lavania,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench