Disposed

Anand Mohan Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Sept 2022CRLR/1684/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a revision against an ex-parte maintenance order. The court directed the appellant to deposit arrears in instalments to gain protection, allowing a recall application upon compliance, citing Rajnesh.

What did the court decide?

Conditionally set aside the impugned order; ordered deposit of arrears; permitted recall application only after first instalment payment.

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

¶1

Court No. - 85

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 1684 of 2022

¶3

Revisionist :- Anand Mohan Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vipul Kumar Dubey,Manoj Kumar Dubey

¶4

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

The present revision has been filed for setting aside the exparte Judgement and order dated 02.03.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballia in Maintenance Case No.79 of 2019 (Smt. Ratna Upadhyay Vs. Anand Mohan Upadhyay) under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Police Station Bansdeeh Road, District Ballia, whereby the revisionist has been directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of filing application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the opposite party no.2 has deserted him and the revisionist tried his level best to bring her back but all in vain. He further submits that the opposite party no.2 instead of living with the revisionist, had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which has been illegally allowed exparte by the learned Family Court without considering the factual and legal aspect of the matter thus, perverse findings have been recorded by the Court below, therefore the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside by this Court.

¶9

Learned A.G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer and stated that the revisionist has neither paid any arrears of maintenance amount nor is he paying the monthly maintenance amount, as has been ordered by the Court below.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is ready to pay Rs.2,10,000/- towards the due/arrears of amount and he may be permitted to file recall application, which may be directed to be decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.

¶11

Considering the same, revisionist is directed to deposit Rs. 2,10,000/- in three equal monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid on or before 02.10.2022 the remaining

¶12

two instalments shall be paid by the revisionist on or before 02.11.2012, 02.12.2022 respectively.

¶13

The amount so deposited by the applicant shall be paid over to the opposite party no.2 after due verification.

¶14

In case, the revisionist deposits the first instalment and files a recall application, then the same shall be considered and decided by the learned Court below as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law after hearing the parties, in the light Judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the matter of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324 preferably within a period of four months from the date of filing such recall application.

¶15

However, in case, the revisionist fails to deposit the aforesaid amount within a month from today or fails to deposit subsequent instalment as stated above, the protection granted by this Court shall automatically stand vacated and the Court below will be at liberty to proceed against the revisionist in accordance with law.

¶16

It is made clear that the amount deposited by the revisionist shall be adjusted in the final outcome of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

¶17

Office is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Court below forthwith.

¶18

With the aforesaid directions, the instant revision stands disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.9.2022 S.Ali

¶20

Digitally signed by SHAUKAT ALI Date: 2022.09.06 17:39:03 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anand Mohan Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Mohan Upadhyay 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

Seraj Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Archana and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajendra Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sarla Vs State of U.P.and Another

Krishna Kant Agrawal Gupta @ Krishna Kant and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sujata Sharma Alias Jusi Vs Janardhan Sharma @ Jatin and Another