Dismissed

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Up and Another

Allahabad HC26 Oct 2018A482/37778/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a Family Court order that seized the applicant's bank account to secure maintenance payments owed to his ill and elderly wife. The court held the order was not erroneous.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashment of the impugned Family Court order is dismissed. The applicant is directed to maintain his wife using his own means.

Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs State of Up and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37778 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

By way of the instant application, the applicant has sought for quashment of the impugned order dated 27.01.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, in Case No.164 of 2014 Smt. Kusum Sharma Vs. Vijay Kumar Sharma whereby bank account of the applicant has been seized.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in this case, the applicant is an old person of 70 years of age and has not committed any offence but without any rhyme or reason, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura has erroneously seized bank account no.01190050057 of State Bank of India, Branch Luko Workshop, Ajmer which is causing great annoyance to the applicant as he is unable to meet the personal expenses and he is seriously ill and he is in utter need of his own money which because of the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura dated 27.01.2018 cannot be used by the applicant.

¶8

During course of the argument, the applicant has expressed desire to settle the matter between the wife and himself on various grounds but the plea is not entertained and is rejected out-rightly on the ground that whatever compromise, the applicant wishes to enter into, he is at his wisdom to approach his own wife and take her into confidence because opposite party no.2 is also an old lady and she was wedded with applicant on 18.02.1980.

¶9

As per averments contained in the accompanying affidavit and the application moved under Section 125(3) Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Mathura, specific description has been given regarding nonpayment of money which aggregated up to April, 2014, Rs.73,350/- which money coupled with accruing arrears swollen up to Rs.2,80,950/-.

¶10

At this juncture, when the applicant is a pensioner and is getting pension to the tune of Rs.8000/then he must meet personal expenses of his wife as directed by the family court concerned. He could not be given any respite as such because interest of opposite party no.2 being an old lady and wife of the applicant deserves to be maintained by the applicant. However, the applicant may seek compromise at his wisdom for which opportunity is open to him on 24 hours of each following day.

¶11

In view of above, the impugned order dated 27.01.2018 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mathura, in Case No.164 of 2014 Smt. Kusum Sharma Vs. Vijay Kumar Sharma cannot be faulted with and no error is perceptible in the impugned order.

¶12

Consequently, the instant application being devoid of merits is dismissed.

¶13

However, the applicant is supposed to maintain his wife and pay the maintenance amount to her at the earliest by resorting to his own means.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.10.2018 rkg

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Up and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Sharma v. State of Up and Another

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

Divakar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ganga Lahari Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Neha Verma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Budd Prakash Tyagi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Banti @ Phoolan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Chetan Vs State of U.P. and Another