The court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a maintenance order. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order, the application was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12270 of 2020
Applicant :- Satish Kumar @ Raju Niwakar And 2 Ors Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Ansar Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA for the State.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 12.03.2020 passed in Case No. 268/2019 (Rajni Devi vs. Satish Kumar @ Raju) under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., whereby, the applicant no.1 is directed to pay maintenance allowance to the tune of Rs.5000/- per month to the opposite party no.2.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and does not find any infirmity in the order impugned.
Consequently, the present application is dismissed .
Order Date :- 28.8.2020 A. Pandey
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order directing the applicant to pay maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. contains any legal infirmity warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Satish Kumar @ Raju Niwakar And 2 Ors
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
