CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Nirmal Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 29 August 2000 · Citation: (2001) 1 ACR 44

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.K. Rathi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 125 · Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 24
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Revision No. 1879 of 1999
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 390 words

B.K. Rathi, J.—The opposite party No. 2 moved an application against the revisionist u/s 125, Cr. P.C. On that application she has been awarded maintenance @ Rs. 500 per month by Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur (Nagar) by order dated 3.8.1999. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.

2.

I have heard Sri Saghir Ahmad, learned Counsel for the revisionist, Sri A. K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and the learned A.G.A. and have gone through the record. The affidavits have been exchanged.

3.

It is contended that the revisionist is ready to keep the opposite party No. 2. However, the opposite party No. 2 has claimed separate residence and maintenance on the ground of cruelty and ill treatment by the revisionist. The entire evidence has been considered. The revisionist also filed a suit for restitution of conjugal rights but later on it was got dismissed on 5.10.1998, by order Annexure CA-1 passed by principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur (Nagar). In the circumstances there was sufficient ground for separate residence and maintenance.

4.

Next it is contended that income of the revisionist has not been assessed and maintenance @ Rs. 500 per month have been awarded. It is the case of the revisionist that he is T.V. mechanic and is earning Rs. 700-800 per month. The learned trial court took judicial notice of the fact that a T.V. mechanic can easily earn much more than Rs. 700-800 per month. Therefore, there is no illegality in awarding maintenance @ Rs. 500 per month.

5.

Lastly it is contended that in a matrimonial petition maintenance of Rs. 500 per month has also been awarded to opposite party No. 2 from the revisionist u/s 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. This fact has not been disputed. It is contended that maintenance can not be recovered u/s 125, Cr. P.C. and also u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, recovery of the maintenance can be permitted in any of the two cases.

6.

No other point has been pressed before me in this revision. The revision is accordingly dismissed. However, it is observed that the opposite party No. 2 shall recover maintenance either u/s 125, Cr. P.C. or u/s 24 of Hindu Marriage Act and recovery under the both orders shall not be allowed by the executing court.