Dismissed

Smt Sarita v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Mar 2022A482/6761/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge issued order early in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The applicant faced financial hardship due to a pending maintenance matter since 2018. The court directed the trial court to dispose of the case within six months. No substantive order was passed regarding the underlying maintenance petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to dispose of the pending maintenance case within six months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 92

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6761 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt Sarita Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Patel Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶5

The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for early disposal of the Case No.805 of 2018, pending in the Court of Principal Judge/ Family Court, Jaunpur within stipulated period.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner / applicant has submitted that the case is pending since the year 2018 and even a single penny of awarded amount under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has not been given to her and she is facing hardship for her livelihood.

¶7

Learned A.G.A. has opposed the aforesaid prayer.

¶8

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of Case No.805 of 2018, under Section 125 Cr.P.C. enclosed as Annexure 1 to the petition, it is found that an ex-parte order was passed in favour of the applicant, against which on 23.3.2021 a recall application was moved by Opposite Party No.2 and the order dated 17.12.2021 was recalled and the matter was restored after imposing the cost upon Opposite Party No.2 and cost was accepted / paid to the applicant. On 4.1.2021 a written statement has also been filed and the proceeding of the case is going on.

¶9

As the applicant is not getting any maintenance and facing financial hardship since the year 2018 to get speedy justice as a right of litigant and hence, it is expected that learned Court below shall decide the matter expeditiously say within a period of six months from the date of production / receipt of certified copy of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the any of the parties and if adjournment is necessary, any short date may be given.

¶10

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of

¶11

Order Date :- 22.3.2022 S. Kumar

¶12

Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR Date: 2022.03.23 10:36:57 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Sarita v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sarita 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.Home and 3 Others

Mahboob Vs State of U.P Thru. Secy. Home and Another

Manoj Verma and Others Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Mohd. Anis Vs State of U.P. and Another

Intazar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Rani Vs State of U.P.