Disposed

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 May 2018A482/17894/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application to quash orders regarding maintenance arrears, the court refused to quash but directed the applicant to pay a fixed sum in installments. Continued monthly payments were ordered, and lower court proceedings were to continue on merits without coercive action unless terms were breached.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to pay Rs. 1,05,000 in three installments and Rs. 5,000 monthly maintenance; main application to be decided on merits subject to compliance.

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

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17894 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Avinash Mishra,Arun Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 16.08.2018 passed in Case No. 81 of 2015 and order dated 21.12.2017 passed in Misc. Case No. 370 of 2017 (Restoration Application) under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar.

¶7

Earlier by order dated 02.04.2015, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar had by an ex-parte order awarded monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 10,000/- per month in favour of the opposite party no. 2 from the date of her application being 29.11.2012.

¶8

Against the above ex-parte order, the applicant had filed an application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. On that application, an order was passed on 11.08.2015 requiring the applicant to deposit 25% of the arrears till 12.10.2015.

¶9

Admittedly, the applicant made deposit of Rs. 85,000/- much later then the date fixed by the learned Court below.

¶10

In such circumstances, the application filed under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. came for hearing on 16.08.2016, when the learned Court below had passed an order directing the applicant to deposit 50% of the arrears by 07.11.2016.

¶11

The matter thus remained pending for sometime.

¶12

The application filed by the applicant to recall the order dated 16.08.2016 came to be allowed by order dated 21.12.2017, subject to payment of cost Rs. 2,000/-. The applicant was further required to make good deficiency of the deposit.

¶13

Considering the facts noted above, it is clear that the applicant has not been paying maintenance allowance to the opposite party no. 2 though there is no stay order operating in his favour.

¶14

As to the condition for recall for hearing of the application filed

¶15

under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C., again the applicant had not complied with the conditions imposed by the learned Court below and had not challenged the same at the relevant time. Even the present application appears to be belated.

¶16

Then, learned AGA submits that the applicant is a class three employee with the ordnance factory and drawing a salary of about Rs. 35,000/- per month.

¶17

Considering the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the application pending any further.

¶18

Leaving it open to the opposite party no. 2 to file recall of this order, is so advised the present application is disposed of on the following terms:

¶19

The applicant shall pay to the opposite party no. 2 or deposit before the learned Court below a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- in three equal installments; first Rs. 35,000 on or before 15.06.2018, second Rs. 35,000/- on or before 15.07.2018 and third Rs. 35,000/- on or before 15.08.2018.

¶20

The applicant shall continue to pay to opposite party no. 2 or deposit before the learned court below, towards monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs. 5,000/- from the period June, 2018 onwards on or before the tenth day of each calendar month.

¶21

Any amount already deposited by the applicant may be adjusted towards payment/s to be made by the applicant towards the last instalment/s.

¶22

Subject to aforesaid compliance being made, no coercive measure shall be taken against the applicant and the application filed by the applicant under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. may be decided on it's own merits.

¶23

All the amounts if deposited by the applicant in the Court below shall be released to the opposite party no. 2 forthwith.

¶24

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.

¶25

Order Date :- 22.5.2018 A. Singh

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amarjeet Singh Taneja Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Moni Sahu Vs Naresh Sahu

Satyendra Kumar Rai and 2 Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 6 Ors.

Sachin @ Rinku Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmveer and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another