Dismissed

Jagdish Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2018A482/36232/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an application seeking indulgence regarding maintenance arrears and execution proceedings. It upheld the recovery warrant and allowed the maintenance to be paid in instalments by the future dates.

What did the court decide?

Directed the applicant to pay total arrears in four equal instalments within four months and ensure monthly payment going forward or face coercive steps.

Jagdish Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 36232 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Jagdish Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.

¶5

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

¶6

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 allow the applicant to pay the total amount of maintenance arising out of judgement and order dated 18.4.2016 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoria in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. pending as Original Case No. 983 of 2014 (Old Case No. 689 of 2003) (Smt. Shaila Devi and another Vs. Jagdish Yadav), police station Rampur Karkhana, district Deoria in easy instalment and no coercive steps be taken against the applicant in Execution Case No. 7 of 2018, under Section 128 Cr.P.C. arising out of Original Case No. 983 of 2014 (Old Case No. 689 of 2003).

¶7

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that initially the applicant has approached this court by filing a Criminal Revision No. 1532 of 2016 against the order dated 18.4.2016 whereby the Principal Judge, Family Court, Deoria has passed an order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. granting maintenance of Rs. 1500/- from the date of moving application and this court has granted indulgence by directing the applicant to pay regular maintenance allowance from the date of the order and half of the arrears amount was directed to be deposited within a period of three months from the date of the order i.e. 24.5.2016. It was also directed that in case of default the interim order shall stand automatically come to an end.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a poor person and is a labour in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee ACT (MNREGA). He has very meagre income and as such he could not comply with the order passed by this court. Thereafter the proceeding under Section 128 Cr.P.C. was initiated by the opposite party no. 2 in which the court below has passed an order on 6.10.2017 directing the applicant to pay the arrears of amount of maintenance to the tune of Rs. 2,37,000/- and in default of payment recovery warrant was issued. As the applicant could not comply with the order he was taken in custody and remained incarceration for a period of 30 days. On account of which recovery warrant has been issued against the

¶9

applicant on 18.8.2018, hence the applicant approached this court to seek indulgence.

¶10

Per contra learned A.G.A. has contended that the applicant has misused the liberty granted by this court to him to deposit the amount of maintenance. The opposite party no. 2 has not received a single penny despite the order of maintenance was granted on 18.4.2016, hence the court below has rightly issued recovery warrant against the applicant, which suffers from no procedural illegality or perversity.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this court does not find any illegality in granting maintenance to the opposite party no.2 by order dated 18.4.2016. The applicant has deliberately committed default in payment of maintenance allowance, hence the recovery warrant has been issued. The applicant is under bounden duty to maintain his wife. The applicant has failed to comply the order earlier passed by this court.

¶12

In order to secure the ends of justice the applicant is directed to continue to pay the maintenance allowance month to month as directed by the court below and shall deposit the total amount of arrears in four equal instalment within four months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. The amount so deposited by the applicant shall be paid to the opposite party no. 2. In default it will be open to the court below to initiate coercive proceeding against the applicant.

¶13

With the above directions the application is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 10.10.2018

¶15

Shahnawaz

Jagdish Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Nandei Saroj @ Narendra Kumar Saroj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lachchho and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and another

Umesh Dubey and Another Vs State of Up and Another

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.