Allahabad High Court
/224/2025 of DEVENDRA PRATAP Vs KUMARI PRANVI (MINOR) THRU. HER MOTHER SMT. DEEPA SINGH on 4 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 224 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. (C. M. Application No. 01 of 2025) 1. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. The Office has reported a delay of
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 224 of 2025
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
(C. M. Application No. 01 of 2025)
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. This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. The Office has reported a delay of 151 days.
3. We gone through the affidavit filed in support for the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the affidavit states sufficient reasons.
4. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
5. The application for condonation of delay is allowed.
6. The appeal shall be treated to have been filed in time. Order on the appeal
1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Court Act, against the Interim Maintenance Order dated 20.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge-II, Family Court, Hardoi in Original Suit No. 1713/2022, under Section 13(1) (1ka), Hindu Marriage Act, 'Deepa Singh vs. Devendra Pratap'. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sachida Nand, Jyoti Rajpoot Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Devendra Pratap .....Appellant(s) Kumari Pranvi (Minor) Thru. Her Mother Smt. Deepa Singh .....Respondent(s)
3. Having gone through the order impugned, we find that the learned Trial Court has considered the law as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court has also considered that the appellant had stated before the Trial Court that the daughter was not studying anywhere and that he had already filed a Suit under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, which is pending. The respondent's mother i.e. wife of the appellant was running a beauty parlour and she was enjoying free medical facilities from Command Hospital. However, learned Trial Court has still ordered Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the appellant to his daughter.
4. We have gone through the order and we find that the Trial Court has rightly considered the law as well as the pleadings and has found that the appellant has never denied that the respondent is his daughter and since he is also working the respondent is entitled to maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month. We do not find any legal or factual infirmity in such order.
5. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. December 4, 2025 Darpan Sharma FAPLD No. 224 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- DARPAN SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench