Court No. - 50 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2717 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sharafat Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Another Petitioner Counsel :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Ashok Kumar Roopanwal,J.
It has been argued by Mr. Deepak Srivastava holding brief for Mr. P.K.
Shukla, learned counsel for the revisionist that the application under Section
127, Cr.P.C. was wrongly decided by the trial court. According to him, the
alteration of the maintenance allowance awarded under Section 125, Cr.P.C.
can be ordered only when it is proved that there has been a change in the
circumstances either of the wife or the husband and because that aspect was
not touched in the order in question, hence, the order is bad and is liable to be
quashed.
Issue notice to O.P. No.2 to file counter affidavit within 2 weeks. Rejoinder
affidavit may be filed within 1 week thereafter.
List thereafter.
Till then, operation of the order dated 29.4.10 passed by the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bareilly shall remain stayed, however, that amount shall
remain payable which was ordered in the application under Section 125,
Cr.P.C.
Order Date :- 21.7.2010
T. Sinha