Allahabad High Court
CRLR/2758/2000 of SURAJ BHAN ALIAS SURYA BHAN Vs STATE OF U.P. on 22 December 2018
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2758 of 2000 Revisionist :- Suraj Bhan Alias Surya Bhan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Kirti Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J. Case called out in the revised list. None is present on
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.
Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2758 of 2000
Revisionist :- Suraj Bhan Alias Surya BhanOpposite Party :- State Of U.P.Counsel for Revisionist :- Ram Kirti SinghCounsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Case called out in the revised list.
None is present on behalf of the revisionist to press thisrevision. Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 is also notpresent. Learned A.G.A. is present.
This revision has been preferred against the judgment and orderdated 13.09.2000 passed by Family Judge, Varanasi in Case No.844 of 1995 (Smt. Nagina Devi Vs. Suraj Bhan), whereby therevisionist Suraj Bhan was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.350/- per month to the opposite party No.2-Smt. Nagina Deviand a sum of Rs. 150/- per month to her minor daughter fromthe date of making application dated 29.05.1995.
Record shows that there is no interim order in favour of therevisionist.
On 22.03.2017 the case was listed, but it was passed over on theillness slip of Sri Ram Kirti Singh, learned counsel for therevisionist. On 15.12.2018 case was against listed, but no oneappeared on behalf of the revisionist to press the revision.
I have heard learned A.G.A. and perused the judgment andorder dated 13.09.2000.
I find that there is no illegality or manifest error of law orperversity in the judgment and order dated 13.09.2018 passedby the Family Court. Presumption, observations and findingsrecorded by the Family Court, Varanasi are well found.
Considering the very petty amount of maintenance as awardedby the Family Court, Varanasi to the opposite party No.2 andher minor daughter, no interference is required.
The revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.12.2018