The court rejected an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside a recovery order for interim maintenance arrears. The court held that since the interim maintenance order of 2018 remains in force, the recovery order could not be quashed.
Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was rejected and the recovery order remained in force.
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. - 73
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7893 of 2022
Applicant :- Mohammad Kamil Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Yadav,Ganesh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
By means of this application under section 482 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the applicant seeks to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the order dated 23.12.2021 passed by Village Court Patiyali, District Kasganj in case no. 86 of 2020, Smt. Nilo Begum @ Nilofar Vs. Mohammad Kamil, under section 125 Cr.P.C., police station Ganjdundwara District Kasganj.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the order of interim maintenance had been passed against him and now recovery of the maintenance allowance has been issued. As per the learned counsel for the applicant, in this regard, he has deposited Rs. 6600/-, so the order dated 23.12.2021 be set aside and the order of interim maintenance may be allowed from the date of order only and not from the date of application.
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer of the applicant.
If we go through the impugned order it is apparent that this order has been passed just to recover the arrears of the interim maintenance. Admittedly, order of interim maintenance was passed on 21.8.2018 and that order still exists and there is no prayer to set aside the same, so as long as order of interim maintenance dated 21.8.2018 exists, the prayer for setting aside the order regarding recovery of maintenance cannot be allowed.
In my opinion, the application is devoid of merits and thus is rejected, accordingly.
Order Date :- 6.6.2022
Gss
Digitally signed by GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA Date: 2022.06.07 11:27:21 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the inherent jurisdiction can be invoked under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an order regarding recovery of interim maintenance arrears when the maintenance order remains subsisting.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammad Kamil
Sadhna Rani (Thakur)
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
