Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2631 (ALL)

Virendra v. State of U. P. and Another

2013-10-23

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI II

body2013
Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.:- With the consent of the parties, this criminal revision is being decided finally instead of deciding the stay application. 2. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 15.12.2004 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur by which the revisionist was directed to pay the awarded amount and the due amount by 15.05.2005. 3. A perusal of record reveals that an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by Smt. Indu against the revisionist which was allowed by in terms of the compromise dated 24.11.2002. In that compromise, there was a condition that Smt. Indu is entitled for maintenance amount till her life or until she remarries. After remarriage, she will not be entitled to awarded amount. 4. Subsequently, an application for recovery of that amount was filed and on that day the impugned order was passed. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that an application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. was filed by the wife for recovery of the dues. An objection was filed that since Smt. Indu had remarried in the month of May and June 2003 with Mani Ram son of Jagdish, resident of Mashihabad, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Bahraich hence she is not entitled to any maintenance from the date of marriage. 6. It was also submitted that this objection has not been decided as yet and without deciding the objection, the recovery warrant has been issued. 7. Since the application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. and objection is pending since 2004, with the consent of the parties, it is directed that the Principal Judge, Family Court shall decide the application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. and objection preferably within three months from the date when certified copy of this order is produced before the Court. 8. It is made clear that the Principal Judge, Family Court will not grant any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and if at all it becomes necessary to grant adjournment it should be on exemplary cost so that the parties may not resort to any delaying tactics. 9. In this view of the direction/observation, this criminal revision is disposed of. 10. Till the disposal of application under Section 128 Cr.P.C. and its objection, recovery of amount due after May 2003 shall remain stayed. If the revisionist delays disposal of the application then the stay order shall automatically stand vacated. ______________