Disposed

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2022A482/28707/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the applicant, a respondent in Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings, has no locus to file an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the complainant's disclosure affidavit without first complying with asset disclosure mandates from the Supreme Court.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; future applications to be considered only after compliance with asset disclosure mandates.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28707 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Amit Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Aman Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

¶5

The applicant, who is respondent in the proceedings arising out of Section 125 Cr.P.C. filed by Opposite Party No. 2. Complainant therein has filed complaint alongwith requisite enclosure as provided by judgment passed by Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and others (2021) 2 SCC 324. The applicant (respondent therein) has filed reply, however, admittedly he has not complied with directions passed in para 72.3 of Rajnesh (supra) that he has not filed any affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities to him and before complying such mandate he proceeded further and filed application in terms of para 72.6 of Rajnesh (supra) and raised dispute in respect of declaration made by complainant and now he is aggrieved that his application has been rejected.

¶6

Applicant is challenging the disclosure made by complainant without disclosing his assets and liabilities, therefore, at this stage he has no locus to file any application in terms of para 72.6 of Rajnesh (supra), which states as under:

¶7

" 72.6 (f) If there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek permission of the Court to serve interrogatories, and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party under Order 11 CPC. On filing of the Affidavit, the Court may invoke the provisions of Order 10 CPC or Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, if it considers it necessary to do so. The income of one party is often not within the knowledge of the other spouse. The Court may invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within the personal knowledge of the party concerned."

¶8

Therefore, at this stage this Court cannot entertain applicant's prayer. However, the application is disposed of with the observation that in case

¶9

applicant complies with other conditions in terms of judgment in Rajnesh (supra) and at appropriate stage any application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law without getting influence of impugned order.

¶10

Order Date :- 3.12.2022/AK (Sl. No. 13 out of 207 fresh cases)

¶11

Digitally signed by AWADESH KUMAR Date: 2022.12.03 14:43:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Makhan Chu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Harishchandra and Others Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Ram Dutt Vs State of U.P.

Asna Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhanraj Meena Vs State of U.P. and Another

Deepak Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others