Uttarakhand High Court

CRLR/466/1993 of MAHENDRA KUMAR GOEL Vs STATE and ANOTHER on 19 December 2003

Cites 0, Cited by 0

COURT OF UTTARANCHAL, AT NAINITAL. Criminal Revision No. 201/ 2001 (Old No. 466/1993) Mahendra Kumar Goel ….Revisionist. Vs. 1- State 2- Smt. Neera Goel W/o Mahendra Kumar Goel ..Respondents. Hon. Irshad Hussain, J. Heard Sri Dinesh Rawat Advocate, holding brief for Sri Lokendra Dobhal

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

Cited by

0

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

0

Decisions referred to

In this index

0

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

0

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL, AT NAINITAL.

Criminal Revision No. 201/ 2001 (Old No. 466/1993)

Mahendra Kumar Goel ….Revisionist.

Vs.

1-State

2-Smt. Neera Goel W/o Mahendra Kumar Goel ..Respondents.

Hon. Irshad Hussain, J.

Heard Sri Dinesh Rawat Advocate, holding brief for Sri Lokendra Dobhal learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri G.S.Sandhu learned A.G.A. for the state.

2- This is a criminal revision against the judgment dated 28-11-1991 whereby on a petition under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the wife- respondent No.2 and minor children was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- each per month from the date of the application. The revisionist did not pay the maintenance allowance whereby by impugned order dated 18-1-1993 recovery proceedings by coercive measures were initiated. Perusal of both the orders reveals that there is no legal infirmity in passing the orders by the learned Magistrate. The reasons are that the evidence was on record to indicate that the respondent No.2-wife and minor children were living separately and they did have any means to maintain themselves. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was fully justified in awarding the maintenance at the rate of Rs. 250/- each to the wife and the children. When the arrears were not paid order for recovery of the same had to be passed and there was also no illegality in resorting to coercive measure of warrant against the revisionist.

3- For the reasons aforesaid there being no merit in this revision the same is liable to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed.

Dated: 19-12-2003

(Irshad Hussain, J.)

ISB

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead