Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2018A482/33472/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash maintenance orders and a recovery warrant from an ex-parte decision, the High Court held there was no illegality or vulnerability, dismissed the application, and directed the applicant to comply until the lower order is modified.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; applicant directed to comply with the lower court orders.

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

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 33472 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Banvari Lal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Pravina Kumar Pandey 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 14.9.2016 and 24.7.2018 passed by learned Principal Judge Family Court,Firozabad in Case No. 38 of 2017 under section 125 Cr.P.C. (Shyam Devi versus Banwari Lal ) whereby application of the opposite party no.2 was allowed directing the applicant to pay Rs. 2000/- to the opposite party no.2 as well as Rs. 1000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (Bhupendra minor son) and Rs. 500/- to opposite party no.4 (Puspendra minor son) towards maintenance and alimony from the date of decision and the recovery warrant has been issued.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that opposite party no.2 is the legally wedded wife of the applicant. Out of their matrimonial harmony ,there are two minor sons. The opposite party no.2 is a lady of contumacious and obstinate nature. The court below passed the ex.parte order dated 14.9.2016 allowing the application under section 125 Cr.P.C. whereby the opposite party no.2 has been granted Rs. 2000/per month and her two minor sons Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 500/- per month from the date of order . The applicant was not aware about the filing of the

¶9

application under section 125 Cr.P.C. as no notice was ever served upon him. The learned Principal Judge Family Court proceeded ex.parte with the matter granting the maintenance and alimony. The amount so awarded against the applicant is too excessive. The learned court below has passed the order dated 14.9.2018 in an arbitrary manner against law which has culminated into grave injustice with the applicant.

¶10

On the contrary learned AGA contended that the opposite party no.2 had moved an application against the applicant under section 125 Cr.P.C. After filing of the application under section 125 Cr.P.c. the court below proceeded to issue notice to the applicant and the applicant failed to appear on successive dates hence 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 hence the court below has rightly issued the recovery warrant dated 24.7.2018 thus the orders passed by the court below cannot be said to suffer from any perversity or absurdity.

¶11

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the order dated 14.9.2016 has been passed way back in the year 2016 and the applicant has neither moved any application for recall nor has complied with the order which delineates that the applicant is trying to pass on his buck by exploring the continual way of litigation so as to put the wife and her minor sons in very vexatious and distressing position. The court below has rightly issued the recovery warrant dated 24.7.2018 against the applicant.

¶12

Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any illegality or vulnerability in the orders dated 14.9.2016 and 24.7.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court Firozabad. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

However, it is provided that the applicant shall comply with the orders dated 14.9.2016 and

¶14

24.7.2018 passed by the learned Principal Judge Family Court Firozabad until or unless the order is rescinded or modified by any competent court.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.10.2018

¶16

Naim

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banvari Lal 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

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.

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

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

Mahadev Vs State of U.P. and Another