Allowed

Shashi Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Oct 2021A482/7472/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to expedite an execution case concerning maintenance arrears. The court directed the lower court to decide the execution case with all expedition, preferably within three months, without unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the lower court to decide the execution case under Section 128 Cr.P.C. within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order via notary affidavit.

Shashi Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 83

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7472 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shashi Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Chandra Kumar Rai Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Chandra Kumar Rai, learned counsel for applicant and learned learned AGA for State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for a direction to Additional Principal Judge, Family Court / Additional District Judge / Fast Track Court No.2, Azamgarh to expedite Execution Case No. 25 of 2017 (Shashi Pandey vs. Bam Dev) under Section 128 Cr.P.C. within a time bound period.

¶8

Record shows that applicant, who is wife of opposite party-2 initiated proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for maintenance. Same came to be registered as Original Case No. 789 of 2013 (Shashi Pandey and others vs. Bam Dev and others). In aforesaid case, court concerned passed an order dated 24.06.2015 whereby aforesaid application filed by applicant was allowed. Accordingly, opposite party-2 was directed to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- to applicant and her daughter. However, inspite of order dated 24.06.2015, no amount of interim maintenance was paid by opposite party-2 to applicant. Accordingly, applicant filed Execution Case No. 25 of 2017 in terms of Section 128 Cr.P.C.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant contends that execution case was filed by applicant in the year 2017. A period of more than four years has rolled by from the date of filing of execution case but the same has not yet been decided. He further contends that opposite party-2 has paid only a petty amount of Rs. 6000/- till date. He has further invited attention of Court to the order sheet of execution case and on basis of same contends that delay in deciding above noted execution case cannot be attributed to applicant. He, therefore, contends that in case a direction is

¶10

issued to court below to decide aforementioned execution case in a time bound manner, interest of justice shall be served.

¶11

Having heard learned counsel for applicant, learned AGA for State and upon perusal of record, the Court finds that no useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned execution case.

¶12

Accordingly, present application is disposed of finally with a direction to Additional Principal Judge, Family Court / Additional District Judge / Fast Track Court No.2, Azamgarh to decide Execution Case No. 25 of 2017 (Shashi Pandey vs. Bam Dev) under Section 128 Cr.P.C. with all expedition without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy/computer generated copy of this order which shall be filed by applicant before court concerned by means of a notary affidavit.

¶13

Order Date :- 4.10.2021 Ashish Pd.

Shashi Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Pandey v. State of U.P. 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

Mukesh and 5 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Saurabh Goel Vs State of U.P.

Jamuna Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajjo and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Nidhirani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Naveen Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another