Dismissed

Omkar @ Ashwani Tiwari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 Dec 2019A482/40177/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an order dated 25.06.2019 granting maintenance and protection to the wife and daughter of the applicant. The High Court dismissed the application, finding no illegality as the applicants had not objected and had absented themselves despite notice.

What did the court decide?

The application was dismissed; the order dated 25.06.2019 granting maintenance and protection was upheld.

Omkar @ Ashwani Tiwari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 75

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40177 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Omkar @ Ashwani Tiwari And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants for challenging the order dated 25.06.2019 passed in Complaint Case No.1376 of 2016, by which the court below has directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- lump sum and Rs.5,000/- per month to Opposite Party No.2 Rajni Tiwari wife of applicant no.1 Omkar @ Ashwani Tiwari and her daughter Km. Kinjal for their maintenance and further not to commit domestic violence or cause physical or mental torture.

¶7

As per the allegations made in the complaint, the applicants are said to have committed domestic violence against the Opposite Party No.2 as such, an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act was filed against the applicants.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants could not point out any illegality in the order of the court below and has submitted that Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 are the wife and daughter of the applicant no.1. and the present application has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He has also pointed out certain documents in support of his contention.

¶9

Per contra; learned A.G.A. has supported the impugned order and submitted that the applicants committed domestic violence against Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 and as such, an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act was filed. The applicants after being noticed appeared before the court but did not file any objection and thereafter absented and the Magistrate after considering the entire facts and circumstances passed the impugned order, which do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.

¶10

Having considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that the applicants committed domestic violence against the Opposite Party Nos.2

¶11

and 3 and as such, an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act was filed by the Opposite Party No.2 to provide them protection and to grant maintenance to her and her child. The applicants appeared before the court below but did not file any objection and absented as such, the court below after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case has provided protection to Opposite Party No.2 and her child and maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month and lump sum compensation of Rs.20,000/-. In the backdrop of the said circumstances, there is absolutely no illegality or infirmity in passing the impugned order.

¶12

The present application under Section 482 is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 4.12.2019

¶14

Zafar

Omkar @ Ashwani Tiwari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omkar @ Ashwani Tiwari and 3 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

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

Anand Kumar Gupta and 2 others Vs State of U.P. and another

Sanjay Kumar (Manager Unnati Sonography Centre) and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Savita Patel @ Dhanni Devi Vs Suresh Kumar Patel and 2 Others

Alham Siddki Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kuldeep Kashyap and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Maya Devi and 5 Others Vs State of Up and Another