Dismissed

Shriram v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC29 Jul 2022A482/29100/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court refused to exercise discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a non-bailable warrant issued for non-payment of maintenance. The Court held the applicant legally and morally bound to pay maintenance and dismissed the prayer for sympathy citing prior defaults.

What did the court decide?

The application for quashing the warrant was dismissed upon the filing of the requisitional order.

Shriram Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29100 of 2021

¶3

Applicant :- Shriram Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Shankar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to quash the Non-Bailable Warrant dated 08.09.2019, passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Fatehpur in Case No. 185 of 2019 (Guddi vs. Shriram), under Section - 128 Cr.P.C., Police Station - Bindki, District - Fatehpur.

¶7

Applicant is bound to act in compliance with the previous order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 18.02.2013, by which the mode of payment to be made by the applicant to his wife-opposite party no.2 has been indicated.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant claims that because of the adverse situation created by pandemic COVID-19, the applicant was not able to pay the amount of maintenance. However, when asked as to how the applicant was unable to pay the arrears due from January, 2013, which was directed to be paid successively each month on the 7th day of February, 2013 were not abided after the year, 2017, learned counsel for the applicant has not given any satisfactory reason in that regard.

¶9

In this view of the matter, the applicant cannot pray for any sympathy or favourable order by this Court. He is bound to maintain his wife. The amount to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- to a person, though too little an amount and so is the amount given to the children Rs.1,500/- per month maintenance to maintain a child for the whole month and the applicant being father of the child and husband of opposite party no.2 is morally and legally bound to provide maintenance, as directed by this Court. Nothing remains to be considered on its merit. The lower court may proceed further against the applicant, if he desists from acting in compliance of the previous order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 18.02.2013.

¶10

With the aforesaid observation, this application stands disposed

¶11

of .

¶12

However, this order would not preclude the applicant from seeking appropriate relief under Section - 127 Cr.P.C.

¶13

Order Date :- 29.7.2022 S Rawat

¶14

Digitally signed by SHOBHIT RAWAT Date: 2022.08.10 17:22:50 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shriram v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shriram 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rolu Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satendra Prasad Vs State of U.P. and Another

Lakhpat and 5 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Habib Khan and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohitash Baghel Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Tiwari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others