Disposed

Sunil Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Neeta Sharma and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2020A482/7051/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. without merits, remitting interim maintenance proceedings to the Family Court for afresh disposal after affording the applicant an opportunity to file objections.

What did the court decide?

The matter was remitted to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar, for afresh and expeditious disposal of the interim maintenance application after affording the applicant an opportunit

Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs Smt. Neeta Sharma and 2 Ors. — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 79

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7051 of 2020 Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- Smt. Neeta Sharma And 2 Ors Counsel for Applicant :- Abhay Pratap Singh

¶3

Hon'ble Harsh Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard Sri Abhay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 16.10.2019 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar in Misc. Case No.412 of 2018 (Smt. Neeta Sharma Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Kasna, District Gautam Buddh Nagar.

¶6

Learned counsel for applicant contends that applicant has no means to comply with impugned order of interim maintenance dated 16.10.2019 as he is earning only Rs.38,200/- per month as per his salary slips at Annexure-10; that apart from this the applicant was neither afforded reasonable opportunity of filing objections to application for interim maintenance nor reasonable opportunity of hearing; that on application for interim maintenance 16.10.2019 was fixed for hearing but since applicant fell ill an adjournment application was moved on his behalf by his counsel but learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar rejected the application finding it to be delaying tactics and passed the impugned order after hearing his counsel.

¶7

Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that impugned order has been passed after hearing learned counsel for applicant and during arguments learned counsel for applicant has admitted his monthly income Rs.1,86,000/- as against Rs.5,00,000/- per month contended by opposite party no.2.

¶8

Upon hearing learned counsel for parties and perusal of record at this stage without entering into merits of the case, the application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of with the direction that the matter of interim maintenance is remitted back to Principal Judge, Family Court, Gautam Buddh Nagar for afresh and expeditious disposal (after affording only one opportunity to applicant for filing objections within 3 weeks from today) if possible within three months without granting unnecessary adjournment to either party and till then the applicant shall continue to pay the interim maintenance at the rate mentioned

¶9

in the impugned order dated 16.10.2019. If the opposite party no.2 causes deliberate delay in disposal of application for adinterim maintenance, the court may modify order dated 16.10.2019.

¶10

Order Date :- 20.2.2020 Kpy

Sunil Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Neeta Sharma and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar Sharma v. Smt. Neeta Sharma and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Malkhan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Kumar Chaurasia and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Balswaroop Sahu Vs State of Up and Another

Nisar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Om Prakash and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Alka Agarwal and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another