Petitioner challenged harassment by police regarding his son's maintenance arrear. Court noted no order existed against petitioner. State instructed police not to harass. Writ petition disposed accordingly.
Petitioner instructed that neither contacted nor harassed by police for recovery of amount.
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. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15710 of 2020 Petitioner :- Chhotelal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Singh Sengar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for the State - respondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief :
"To issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to take action against respondent no.4 who has illegally harassed the petitioner for depositing the arrear of amount passed under Section 128 Cr.P.C. while no order has been passed for recovery against the petitioner."
On 07.01.2021, this Court passed the following order :
"Heard Sri Shyam Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A.
Against one Gyan Chand Maurya, the respondent no.5 claiming to be his wife, filed Case No.475 of 2018 under Section 125 Cr.P.C.(Nandini Maurya vs. Gyanchandra Maurya), in the court of Additional Principal Judge/Family Court, Court No.4 Jaunpur in which the order dated 30.11.2019 was passed directing the aforesaid Gyanchand Maurya to pay maintenance of a sum of Rs.3000/- per month to Nandini Maurya. Subsequently the order under Section 128 Cr.P.C. has also been passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is the father of aforesaid Gyanchand Maurya. Aagainst the petitioner there is no order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section 128 Cr.P.C. and yet local police is harassing the petitioner and pressuring him to pay the amount pursuant to the order dated 30.11.2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. whereas the said order is not against the petitioner rather it is against his son, who is working abroad. The grievance of the petitioner is that the aforesaid sum cannot be recovered from the petitioner and as such the respondents are illegally and arbitrary harassing him. Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted a week's time to obtain instructions.
Put up as fresh case on 18th January, 2021."
Today, Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasia, learned AGA states on instruction that the petitioner shall neither be contacted nor harassed by the police for recovery of the amount pursuant to the Recovery Certificate issued by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur in case No.46 of 2020 (173/2020) (Nandini Vs. Gyanchandra), P.S. - Saraykhawaja, District - Jaunpur.
In view of the statement made by the learned AGA on behalf of the state - respondents, no further order is required to be passed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the statement made by the learned AGA as aforequoted.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021/vkg
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, who has no maintenance order against him, can be legally harassed for his son's arrear.
Whether the State is authorized to harass the petitioner for recovery of maintenance meant for his son.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nandini Maurya vs. Gyanchandra MauryaReferred¶9
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Chhotelal
State Of U.P.
4 Other Respondents
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
