HARSHPATI vs PRATIMA — CRLR/459/2026

Case under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) Section 125. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: UKHC010105612026

Filing Number

CRLR/5040/2026

Filing Date

15-Jun-2026

Registration No

CRLR/459/2026

Registration Date

15-Jun-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

REVISIONS ( 4 )

Sub-Category

U/S 125 CR.P.C. 1973 {REVISION AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 125 CR.P.C.} ( 2 )

Judicial Branch

ALL SECTIONS (CIVIL AND CRIMINAL)

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) Section 125

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HARSHPATI

    Adv. PAWAN MISHRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRATIMA

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 17-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok MahraView PDF

    CRLR/459/2026 - Summary Note: The document provided is actually CRLR No. 460 of 2026, not 459/2026. In this criminal revision, Harshpati challenged a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs. 20,000 monthly maintenance to Pratima under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court issued notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks and granted an interim stay of the maintenance order pending final hearing. The court found prima facie merit in the petitioner's argument that earlier final judgments (1991 and 1993) had established the parties were not legally married, making the respondent ineligible for maintenance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 17-Jun-2026

    Fresh Cases For Admission -3

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Mahra

  4. 15-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRLR/459/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CRLR/459/2026 - Summary Note: The document provided is actually CRLR No. 460 of 2026, not 459/2026. In this criminal revision, Harshpati challenged a Family Court order directing him to pay Rs. 20,000 monthly maintenance to Pratima under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court issued notice to the respondent returnable in four weeks and granted an interim stay of the maintenance order pending final hearing. The court found prima facie merit in the petitioner's argument that earlier final judgments (1991 and 1993) had established the parties were not legally married, making the respondent ineligible for maintenance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case