Latest news with #criminalprocedure
Time of India
2 days ago
- General
- Time of India
Wife living apart without reasonnot eligible for maintenance: HC
1 2 /Prayagraj: The Allahabad high court has ruled that a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she resides separately from her husband without a valid reason, setting aside a family court's maintenance order. Justice Subhash Chandra Sharma of the Allahabad HC allowed a revision petition filed by Vipul Agarwal, setting aside a Feb 17, 2025, order by the additional principal judge of a family court in Meerut. Passing the order on July 8, Justice Sharma observed, "The trial court (family court) has recorded the finding that the wife failed to prove she had sufficient reasons for living separately from her husband or that he was neglecting to maintain her, even though the amount of maintenance has been fixed in favour of the wife as Rs 5,000 per month. As per the provision contained under section 125(4) of criminal procedure code (CrPC), if the wife is living separately from the husband without sufficient reasons, she is not entitled for maintenance. " Agarwal had filed a criminal revision petition in the HC, seeking to set aside the order passed by the family court, which granted maintenance to his wife. During the course of hearing, the petitioner's counsel argued that despite the trial court finding that the wife was living separately without sufficient reason, it awarded her Rs 5,000 monthly maintenance. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Prostate Issues? Age Isn't the Cause — This Habit Might Be Prostate Health Journal Click Here Undo As per the provision under section 125(4) CrPC if the wife lives separately from the husband without sufficient reason, she is not entitled for maintenance from him. In this way, the trial court committed an error in passing the order, the counsel told the court. He submitted that the trial court did not consider the earning capacity of the revisionist, but fixed the amount of maintenance in favour of the wife and minor child — Rs 5000 and Rs 3000 per month. He also submitted that the petitioner continued to pay Rs 3000 as interim maintenance to his wife and Rs 2000 per month to their minor child. The wife's counsel and state counsel countered that she lives separately due to the husband's neglect, justifying the trial court's decision to grant maintenance. They argued that the trial court's finding might be a clerical error and shouldn't render the entire order illegal or erroneous. A llowing the revision petition of Agarwal, the court in its judgment said, "In view of the aforesaid finding as recorded by the trial court in relation to the second issue and the order fixing the amount of Rs 5000 per month in favour of wife, both are contradictory and in violation of the provision under section 125(4) CrPC. Therefore, the order dated Feb 17, 2025, being erroneous requires interference by this court. " Accordingly, the high court set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the trial court (family court) to decide the case afresh after giving the opportunity of hearing to both the parties on the basis of material on record in accordance with law. However, the HC directed Agarwal to continue paying interim maintenance of Rs 3,000/month to his wife and Rs 2,000/month to their child, as fixed by the trial court, during the pendency of the application.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Yahoo
‘Wasteful manner': Frustrated judge allows two more weeks for Marcy offers to decide on plea agreements
UTICA, N.Y. (WSYR-TV) — Five correction officers charged for their involvement in the deadly beating of an inmate at the Marcy Correctional Facility have been given two more weeks to decide whether they will plead guilty now, or go to a trial. The judge had ordered each of them to come prepared to make a decision, but each defendant's attorney had a reason to ask for more time. In some cases, the hesitation was blamed on the defense teams' complaints about not being able to access all of the evidence shared by the prosecution electronically, calling out blank pages within digital documents and issues playing video clips. Even though he approved the request for more time, Oneida County Judge Robert Bauer wasn't happy about the delay. The judge told one attorney: 'The CPL (criminal procedure law) does contemplate that's exactly your obligation. If you encountered some difficulty in obtaining or viewing discovery, your first step should be to reach out to the prosecution and not allow some two months to elapse and appear in court in what is working out to be a rather wasteful manner.' Other defendants asked for more time because the special prosecutor, the Onondaga County District Attorney's Office, shared new evidence that they feel could alter their decision whether or not to accept the plea offer. Each defendant has been offered a chance to plead guilty to applicable charges by the special prosecutor, the Onondaga County District Attorney's Office. Typically, a plea agreement comes with less prison time than the sentence imposed if the defendant goes to trial and is convicted by a jury. The details of each plea agreement are confidential. Anthony Farina (top charge: murder) Matthew Galliher (top charge: murder) Nicolas Gentile (top charge: tampering with evidence) Nicholas Kieffer (top charge: murder) David Kingsley (top charge: murder) Five more officers are expected to come to court with the same determination, whether to accept the plea offer, tomorrow, April 30. Nicholas Anzalone (top charge: murder) Christopher Walrath (top charge: murder) Michael Mashaw (top charge: manslaughter) Michael Fisher (top charge: manslaughter) David Walters (top charge: manslaughter) The group, with different levels of involvement, is accused of the brutal beating of Robert Brooks in December. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
