Allahabad High Court
CRLR/3545/2024 of DR. SUMIT SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 19 April 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3545 of 2024 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J. 1. List has been revised. 2. None appears on behalf of the revisionist. 3. As per the office report dated 12.3.2026, notice has already been served upon the opposite party No.2. However, no one
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 3545 of 2024
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
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…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. List has been revised.
2. None appears on behalf of the revisionist.
3. As per the office report dated 12.3.2026, notice has already been served upon the opposite party No.2. However, no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.2 nor any counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf.
4. On the last occasion, this Court has recorded in its order that in the event the parties are not present on the next date of listing, the revision shall be decided as per available record.
5. Heard learned A.G.A. for the State.
6. By means of the present revision, the revisionist has challenged the judgment and order dated 27.5.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly in Case No.193 of 2021 (Smt. Diksha Singh vs. Dr. Sumit Singh) wherein the learned Family Court has directed the revisionist to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the opposite party No.2 from the date of application till the date of the order and Rs.12,000/- per month from the date of the order.
7. Upon hearing the learned A.G.A. and perusing the material available record, this Court is of the view that the learned Family Court, after Versus Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Girish Chandra Shukla, Kamlendra Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Dr. Sumit Singh .....Revisionist(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s)
considering each and every aspects of the matter, has held that the there was sufficient cause for the opposite party No.2 to live separately. Further, it has been held that the revisionist has not been able to produce any evidence to prove that the opposite party No.2 has any other source of income and the monthly income of the revisionist, who is a B.D.S. doctor practicing from the year 2016, is Rs.1,50,000/- per month.
8. The judgment and order passed by the learned Family Court impugned in the present revision does not suffer from any illegality or perversity which may warrant interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
9. The revision petition is dismissed. April 20, 2026 Rakesh CRLR No. 3545 of 2024 2 (Garima Prashad,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH MEHTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad