Disposed

Ranjeet v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 May 2023A482/20314/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of a recovery warrant issued for domestic violence maintenance payment, the Court held that the applicant should approach the trial court to ventilate his grievance regarding payment of excess amount. Coercive action was stayed for a limited period.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to move appropriate application to trial court within two weeks regarding excess payment. Coercive action stayed for six weeks or disposal, whichever earlier.

Ranjeet Vs State of U.P. and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:120551

¶2

Court No. - 71

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 20314 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Ranjeet Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manish Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Vijay Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶8

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Ranjeet with the prayer to quash the impugned recovery warrant dated 30.04.2023 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd, Shikohabad, Firozabad in Misc. No. 1482 of 2022 (Kajal Vs. Ranjeet and others), under Section 31 of Women Protection of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Shikohabad, District Firozabad and with a further prayer to direct the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Shikohabad, Firozabad to pass a fresh order on the complaint of the opposite party no.2 as Case No. 1768 of 2020 (Kajal Vs. Ranjeet and others), under Section 18, 19, 20, 22 of Women Protection of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 after given proper opportunity of hearing to the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the husband of the opposite party no.2. It is argued that vide ex-parte judgment and order dated 08.03.2022 the application under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was allowed and apart from certain other directions it was directed that the applicant shall pay of one time payment of Rs. 1 lakh within two months to the opposite party no.2 for mental physical harassment and medical expenses. It was further directed that for Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid as maintenance per month. Against the said judgment and order the applicant preferred an appeal before the concerned Sessions Judge which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 27.02.2023 and it was directed that the applicant shall pay Rs. 5,000/- per month from the date of application and the matter was remanded to be

¶10

heard a fresh. It is submitted that the applicant in compliance of the appellate court's order dated 27.02.2023 has paid total amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- whereas the total amount due upon the applicant was Rs. 1,45,000/-. Para 14, 15 and 16 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court. It is submitted that despite the applicant being paying excess amount, recovery warrants have been issued against him vide order dated 30.04.2023. It is submitted that as such the order impugned is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside

¶11

Learned counsel for the State has also been heard.

¶12

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is provided that the applicant shall move an appropriate application before the concerned trial court ventilating his grievance with regards to the payment of excess amount over the ordered amount by the appellate court within a period of two weeks on which the trial court shall pass appropriate orders within three weeks, thereafter.

¶13

Till the disposal of the said application or till a period of six weeks, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant Ranjeet in the aforesaid case.

¶14

With the aforesaid directions, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands disposed off.

¶15

Order Date :- 30.5.2023 M. ARIF

¶16

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranjeet v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjeet 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haroon Vs State of U.P.

Karimuddin Vs State of U.P.

Harihar Singh Vs State of U.P.

Shyam Babu Kesharwani Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shyam Ji Sharma and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Mahvish Fatima Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others