Narayan Mishra v. Urmila Mishra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Moreover the order was passed by the consent of the parties in regard to the quantum of the interim maintenance. Considering this the revision petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It was pointed out that the application under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code was filed by the respondent-wife on 26-11-2001 although maintenance has been awarded from 1.2.2001. Considering this anomaly in the interest of justice a modification in the date of the order from which the maintenance is to be paid may be made. The petitioner shall be liable to pay the maintenance per order dated 21-3-2003 with effect from 26-11-
2001. Considering this hardship in the payment of the arrears of the maintenance by the petitioner who is a retired army personnel the facility of payment of the arrears of maintenance in instalment may also be provided. The petitioner shall pay the arrears of maintenance in monthly instalment of Rs. 200-00 per month. However monthly payment shall be made in the first week of coming month. Dated: 5-9-2003 ISB (Irshad Hussain, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Family Courts Act, 1984; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 125.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 05 Sep 2003. The bench was IRSHAD HUSSAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.