Dismissed

Prince Katiyar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2023A482/2725/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application, the applicant challenged an interim maintenance order of Rs.3,000/- imposed in a Section 125 Cr.P.C. case, claiming excessive burden and double maintenance. The court dismissed the application, holding no irregularity existed and separate proceedings allow entitlement to maintenance in each.

What did the court decide?

Application for quashing and stay of the interim maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Prince Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2725 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Prince Katiyar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hanuman Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Hanuman Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Prince Katiyar with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 5.9.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Farrukhabad, in Criminal Misc. Case/ 316/2021, (Pooja Katiyar vs. Prince Katiyar) under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Kotwali Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad, and with the further prayer to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order, during pendency of the present application.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Principal Judge, Family Court has allowed the application no. 13A for grant of interim maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 and has ordered to pay Rs.3000/- to the opposite party no. 2 to be paid by the applicant, which is too excessive as the applicant is earning Rs.5,000/- only per month. It is further argued that the opposite party no. 2 has been awarded interim maintenance in a case under Domestic Violence Act and also in a proceeding under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. Para- 15 and 16 of the affidavit has been placed before the Court and it is argued that as such the court concerned could not have imposed interim maintenance to be paid upon the applicant as the opposite party no. 2 is itself getting interim maintenance in two different proceedings. Even otherwise the victim has left him out of own sweet will. It is argued that the opposite party no. 2 is doing a private job as a teacher and is also doing tuition and is earning Rs.25,000/- per month. It is argued that the impugned order as such is bad in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.

¶9

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for quashing.

¶10

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the trial court has allowed the

¶11

application for maintenance being application no. 13A of the record and has directed the applicant to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the opposite party no.2. In so far as the ground of maintenance under two other cases are concerned, they are separate proceedings and the opposite party no. 2 is entitled to get maintenance therein. More so as of now only interim maintenance has been ordered to be paid by the applicant. This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order.

¶12

The application is dismissed.

¶13

Office to communicate this order to the concerned court within three weeks from today.

¶14

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 6.2.2023 Naresh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prince Katiyar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prince Katiyar 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

Abhishek Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amit Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Aleem Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nitin Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Moti Lal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Gopi Chand Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others