Disposed

Dharmpal v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC9 May 2018A482/16370/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of an application by a manual labourer seeking indulgence to comply with maintenance orders following delayed deposits. The order mandates specific future payments conditional on continuation of monthly maintenance, with heavier coercive measures upon default.

What did the court decide?

Applicant ordered to deposit Rs. 10,000 by 31.5.2018 and pay Rs. 2,000 monthly by the 10th of each subsequent month to restore benefit of stay; recovery of previous order stayed until compliance.

Dharmpal Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16370 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Dharmpal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sabhajeet Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ratnesh Kumar Srivastava holding brief of Sri Sabhajeet Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present application has been filed against the order dated 6.5.2017, by which the maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2,500/- per month has been awarded to the opposite party no.2 from the date of her application being 16.2.2012. Against that order, the applicant has filed Criminal Revision No. 2067 of 2017 wherein interim order dated 13.7.2017 had been passed on the following terms:-

¶7

"It is provided that if revisionist prays and continue to pay maintenance to o.p. no.1 @ 2,000/- per month from the date of judgement i.e. 6.5.2017 then recovery of remaining amount shall remain stayed.

¶8

It is, further, specified that if this order is not complied with by the revisionist then in case of two continue default o.p. no.2 shall have the right to recover the amount through Court."

¶9

It is then submitted that while the applicant had made deposit of Rs. 6000/- being arrears as directed by this Court on 26.7.2017. Then there was some delay in complying with the remaining part of the stay order inasmuch the applicant first deposited Rs. 10,000/- on 13.11.2017.

¶10

The default having been committed for more than two months, the learned court below had restrained the liberty of the applicant. He was released on bail and has thereafter made deposit further amount of Rs. 6,000/-. It is thus submitted that the applicant has cleared a default up to month of April, 2018.

¶11

In such circumstance, it is prayed for some indulgence may be granted to the applicant as otherwise, he would not be able to comply with the order dated 6.5.2017, the applicant being a manual labourer only.

¶12

Considering the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the application pending in view of the order proposed to be passed, keeping in mind the interest of opposite party no.2.

¶13

Leaving it open to the opposite party no.2 to apply for recall of this order if so advised, the instant application is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶14

The applicant shall deposit further amount of Rs. 10,000/- on or before 31.5.2018 over and above amount that was due by virtue of the interim order dated 13.07.2017 passed in Criminal Revision No.. 2067 of 2017.

¶15

Upon such deposit being made, the applicant shall be entitled to the

¶16

benefit of the order dated 13.07.2017 so long he continues to deposit Rs 2000/- per month towards maintenance allowance as directed.

¶17

It is further clarified that the amount due for the month of May, 2018, Rs. 2000/- shall be deposited on or before 31.5.2018.

¶18

The applicant shall continue to pay towards monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month to the opposite party no. 2, on or before the 10th day of each calender month, beginning from June 2018, onwards.

¶19

All the amounts may either be paid to the opposite party or be deposited by the applicant in the Court below, within time as indicated. In the latter case, it be released to the opposite party no. 2 forthwith.

¶20

However, it is made clear that in the event of failure on part of the applicant to comply with any part of the order, coercive measures be revived from that stage without any further reference to this Court.

¶21

Order Date :- 9.5.2018

¶22

Mini

Dharmpal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmpal v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimla Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Harish Chandra Arora and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt Meena Shukla Vs State of Up and Another

Maya Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Payas Jain and another Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Jatin Vs State of Up and Another