The High Court rejected a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to set aside a recovery warrant and non-bailable warrant issued in a maintenance dispute. The Court held that the impugned order had no illegality or perversity, especially as grounds had been previously exhausted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 22
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3151 of 2018
Applicant :- Sarjeet Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Narayan Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Aniruddha Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against order dated 12.9.2016 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Hapur in Maintenance Case No. 87/2012 (Smt. Reena and another vs. Sarjeet Kumar Sharma) with the prayer to set aside the recovery warrant and non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant.
The application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by Smt. Reena Sharma/opposite party no. 2 and Km. Kashish/opposite party no.3 which was allowed partly and husband/applicant was directed to pay Rs.4000/- per month to wife/opposite party No.2 and Rs.3000/- per month to daughter/opposite party No.3 as maintenance from the date of application dated 5.11.2012 vide judgment and order dated 14.9.2015 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Hapur in Suit No. 87 of 2012. Against order dated 14.9.2015, revision No. 4570 of 2015 was filed by the husband/applicant which was dismissed vide order dated 17.12.2015 passed by this Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not in a position to deposit said amount awarded by the Principal Judge, Family Court. He is unemployed and dependent upon his parents. He is ready to bring back opposite party nos.2 & 3 to live with him.
From perusal of record and impugned order, it is clear that all grounds taken in this application, have already been taken in application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as in revision. The impugned order passed by the Court concerned has no illegality or perversity. Hence, the application is liable to be rejected.
In view of above backdrop, the application is rejected.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 A. Tripathi/P.P.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether recovery warrant and non-bailable warrant issued under maintenance order should be set aside given the applicant's unemployment and willingness to facilitate reunion.
Whether the grounds taken in the Section 482 application have already been exhausted in earlier proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
Whether the impugned order contains illegality or perversity warranting intervention under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sarjeet Kumar Sharma
State Of U.P.
Smt. Reena Sharma
Km. Kashish
Aniruddha Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
