Dismissed

Santosh Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anotehr

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2018A482/33467/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of an order granting interim maintenance and litigation expenses. The court found no illegality or absurdity in the lower court's order, which proceeded ex parte due to the applicant's absence, noting the wife's lack of independent means.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed and the applicant directed to comply with the interim order.

Santosh Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anotehr — Allahabad HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33467 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Santosh Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anotehr Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

The cases connected and tagged with the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on account of malfunctioning of the computer are being severed and detached

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA and have taken through the record.

¶7

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the applicant has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 31.7.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court, Ballia in Case No. 75 of 2013 under section 125 Cr.P.C. (Manta Devi versus Santosh Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav) whereby application of the opposite party no.2 was allowed directing the applicant to pay Rs. 3000/litigation towards expenses as well as Rs. 2000/per month towards maintenance and alimony.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant. The opposite party no.2 is suffering from severe skin disease which is contagious and deadly in nature. The court below passed the ex.parte order dated 19.5.2015 allowing the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the opposite party no.2 has been granted Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of order. The applicant moved a recall application and the learned Principal Judge Family Court recalled the order dated 19.5.2015 vide order dated 15.12.2015. The court below vide order dated 31.7.2018 allowed the application for interim maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. directing the applicant to pay Rs. 3000/- towards litigation expenses as well as Rs. 2000/- per month towards

¶9

maintenance and alimony during the pendency of application. The amount so awarded against the applicant is too excessive. The learned court below has passed the order dated 31.7.2018 in an arbitrary manner, which has culminated into grave injustice with the applicant.

¶10

It appears from the record that the opposite party no.2 had moved an application against the applicant under section 125 Cr.P.C. on which notice was issued to the applicant but the applicant did not appear despite effectuation of notice. The court below was left with no option except to proceed with the matter ex.parte as the opposite party no.2 had no independent source of survival and was passing through great fiscal crunch. The applicant was trying to protract the matter so as to abstain from his responsibility thus the order passed by the court below cannot be said to suffer from any perversity or absurdity. The applicant moved an application to recall the order dated 19.5.2015. The learned Principal Judge Family Court recalled the order dated 19.5.2015 and proceeded with the matter on merits granting a sum of Rs. 2000/- as interim maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 and Rs. 3000/- towards litigation expenses vide order dated 31.7.2018.

¶11

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality or vulnerability in the order dated 31.7.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Ballia as the matter is still pending for final decision. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶12

However, it is provided that the applicant shall comply with the order dated 31.7.2018 as passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court Ballia until or unless the order is rescinded or modified by the competent court on its finality.

¶13

Order Date :- 11.10.2018

¶14

Naim

Santosh Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anotehr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav v. State of U.P. and Anotehr

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

Pusi @ Pushpendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. 2 Others

Rajesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Asif Vs State of U.P and Anr.

Ashwani Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Banvari Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Mahadev Vs State of U.P. and Another