Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Aditya Nath Mittal, J.
Gaya Prasad Pandey - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 601 of 2015
Decided On : 20-11-2015
Recovery Warrant - Section 125 Cr.P.C. - The court issued a recovery warrant for outstanding maintenance after the revisionist failed to comply with the order to deposit the arrears of maintenance. The court found no error of law or perversity in the order.
Fact of the Case:
The revisionist, a poor Brahmin, filed an application for more time to deposit the amount of maintenance, citing religious duties. Despite being granted one month's time, the revisionist did not comply with the order to deposit the arrears of maintenance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no error of law or perversity in the order issuing the recovery warrant for outstanding maintenance.
Issues: Non-compliance with maintenance payment, issuance of recovery warrant
Ratio Decidendi: The court is competent to issue a recovery warrant for outstanding maintenance if the revisionist fails to deposit the amount, in accordance with the provisions of law.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed.
Aditya Nath Mittal, J.
List has been revised. None present for the revisionist.
2. Heard learned AGA and perused the pleadings of revision.
3. This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 24.06.2015 by which the recovery warrant has been issued in the proceedings under section 125 (3) Cr.P.C.
4. In the grounds of revision, it has been mentioned that on 31.01.2015, the revisionist has filed an application for providing time to deposit the amount as the revisionist being the poor Brahmin and doing pooja path could not deposit the said amount and he wants some more time to deposit the amount.
5. Learned AGA has defended the impugned order.
6. During the pendency of this revision, by order dated 28.09.2015, one month's time was granted to deposit the arrears of Rs.10,500/- but the revisionist has not complied with the said order.
7. By order dated 24.06.2015, learned court below has issued recovery warrant for outstanding of maintenance. Certainly, if the revisionist do not deposit the amount of maintenance, the court below is competent to issue recovery warrant in accordance with the provisions of law.
8. I do not find any error of law or perversity in the order dated 24.06.2015.
The revision is dismissed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
