Bench dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash a Family Court order granting interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000/month to the wife, holding no illegality existed.
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. - 91
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28635 of 2021
Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kushmondeya Shahi,Krishna Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Heard Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ravi Kant Kushwaha, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.
By way of present application, applicant made prayer to quash the order dated 29.09.2021 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 3, Varanasi in Case No. 393 of 2018 (Kakul Banafar Vs. Satya Prakash), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Shivpur, District Varanasi.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the interim maintenance application filed by the opposite party no.2 has wrongly been allowed by the court below without any proper reasoning. He further submitted that opposite party no.2 herself is a very affluent lady and there is no need for her to get any interim maintenance. He further submitted that the trial court failed to properly examine the facts of the case and directed the applicant to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month as interim maintenance, which is very excessive. He further submitted that the amount of interim maintenance should be reduced.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2 and he is chartered accountant, therefore, Rs. 6,000/- per month as interim maintenance is not much for him and he is able to pay the same and present application is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. By way of impugned order dated 29.09.2021, the interim maintenance application of opposite party no.2 was allowed and trial court after considering the facts of the case directed the applicant to pay Rs. 6,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 as interim maintenance. The impugned order shows that there is specific case of opposite party no.2 that applicant is chartered accountant and it cannot be said that applicant is unable to afford Rs. 6,000/- per month as an interim maintenance and further perusal of the impugned order shows that applicant
resides in Mumbai and he also filed a divorce petition in Mumbai and is continuously delaying the proceedings of the case and till date he did not even file his objection.
Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 29.09.2021, therefore, present application is devoid on merits and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.5.2022 AK Pandey
Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.05.19 19:49:27 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order allowing interim maintenance of Rs. 6,000 per month was illegal and liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Satya Prakash Singh
State of U.P.
Kakul Banafar
Sameer Jain
Anupam Kumar Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
