Dismissed

Nisar Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Allahabad HC22 May 2018A482/17999/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Corporate Bench quashed the order in a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application challenging the award of interim maintenance. The court permitted the underlying Section 125 proceedings to conclude expeditiously within six months while retaining the interim award.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to be concluded within six months; interim maintenance award retained.

Nisar Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17999 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Nisar Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Rajiv Chowdhury Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri J.P.Singh holding brief of Sri Rajiv Chowdhury, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State as also perused the record.

¶6

The present application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the Family Judge/Fast Track Court, Bhadohi, Gyanpur, by which interim maintenance allowance @ Rs. 2,000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 and @ Rs. 1,000/- per month each to her two children has been awarded from the date of that order.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier also the opposite part no.2 had filed a similar maintenance application being Case No. 166 of 2011, which was dismissed on 02.03.2017. It is thus submitted that the second application is not maintainable.

¶8

However, it is not disputed that the opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the present applicant and that the opposite party nos. 3 and 4 are his children. Also, it is seen that the award of interim maintenance allowance is minimal amount that has been awarded by the learned court below.

¶9

Considering the above, no interference is warranted in the order dated 16.02.2018. However, it is provided, subject to the applicant complying with the aforesaid order, the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. may be concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of date of production of a certified copy of this order. While deciding the aforesaid application, the learned court below may also make efforts to resolve the dispute between the parties and in the event of failure of such efforts, it shall pass a reasoned order, keeping in mind on all issues raised by the applicant including the issue of maintainability of second application.

¶10

The present application is disposed of .

¶11

Order Date :- 22.5.2018 Lbm/-

Nisar Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisar Ahmad v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

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

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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