Dismissed

Ram Awadh Prajapati @ Pintu Prajapati v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Sept 2022A482/13476/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application seeking to quash the lower court order awarding maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court held the impugned order was not illegal as the applicant failed to prove inability to earn and maintained a statement of sufficient means.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash the impugned order dated 13.04.2022 was dismissed as it was devoid of merits.

Ram Awadh Prajapati @ Pintu Prajapati Vs State of… — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 89

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13476 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Ram Awadh Prajapati @ Pintu Prajapati Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

By way of present application, applicant made a prayer to quash the order dated 13.04.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur in Case No. 741 of 2020, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Buxa, District Jaunpur pending in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2 and is the father of opposite party no.3 and without any reasonable cause opposite party no.2 started living separately and applicant still wants to live with opposite party no.2 and his minor daughter but opposite party no.2, his wife, is not ready to live with him. He next submitted that opposite party no.2 moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for her maintenance against the applicant, which was allowed by the court below on 13.04.2022 and applicant was directed to pay Rs. 3000/- per month to opposite party no.2 i.e. his wife and Rs. 2000/- per month to opposite party no.3 i.e. his minor daughter.

¶8

He next submitted that order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the court below is wholly illegal as at the time of passing the same, court below failed to properly analyze the fact of the case and accepted the version of opposite party no.2 as a gospel truth and did not even consider that without any fault of applicant, opposite party no.2 is residing separately and applicant is still wants to live with her. He next submitted that applicant is a poor peasant and he is having no sufficient income to maintain his wife and daughter and it is not possible for him to pay them total Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance allowance, therefore, order dated 13.04.2022 is illegal.

¶9

Per contra, learned AGA submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 13.04.2022 and it is a well reasoned order and court below while passing the same considered all the material aspect and as applicant failed to maintain his wife and his

¶10

daughter, therefore, court below directed him to pay total Rs. 5000 per month as a maintenance allowed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. to opposite party no.2 i.e. his wife and opposite party no.3 i.e. his daughter, therefore, present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶12

Applicant is admittedly husband of opposite party no.2 and father of opposite party no.3 and as he failed to maintain them, therefore, opposite party no.2 had to move an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for her maintenance and maintenance of her daughter. As per opposite party no.2 she is having no source of income and applicant is the truck driver and is having sufficient means. Applicant appeared before the court concerned and filed his objection and as per objection filed by the applicant, he is not truck driver but a farmer, therefore, from the perusal of the record it appears that applicant did not deny that he is not able to earn. Further he did not disclose his income and court below after considering the entire evidence on record arrived at the conclusion that applicant being husband is responsible to maintain opposite party no.2 and it is his obligation to maintain opposite party no.3 i.e. his daughter and passed order under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Being husband and father of opposite party no.2 and 3 respectively there is legal obligation of applicant to maintain them but he failed to maintain them and he is a man of sufficient means as he, according to his own version, is a farmer, therefore, it cannot be said that he is not in a position to pay total Rs. 5000/- per month to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as monthly maintenance allowance.

¶14

In view of above discussion, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 13.04.2022, therefore, the instant application being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 23.9.2022 AK Pandey

¶16

Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.09.27 19:44:00 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Awadh Prajapati @ Pintu Prajapati v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Awadh Prajapati @ Pintu Prajapati 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

Awdhesh Rai and Another Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Joita Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shiv Charan and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Pankaj and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shera Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and Another