Partly allowed

Saheel @ Sushil Ahmad v. State of U.P. . and Another

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2023A482/27332/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an interim maintenance order. The Court held that the dispute over the marital relationship was a question of fact for the trial court. It directed the Family Court to decide the main application within four months.

What did the court decide?

The Family Court order is not quashed but is allowed. The applicant must comply with it. The Family Court is directed to decide the Section 125 Cr.P.C. application within four months.

Saheel @ Sushil Ahmad Vs State of U.P. . and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194767

¶2

Court No. - 89

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 27332 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Saheel @ Sushil Ahmad Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. . And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar,Chandrama Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶7

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the order dated 19.05.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah in Case No.444 of 2018, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Naya Gaon, District Etah.

¶8

Counsel for the applicant submits that instant order challenged here dated 19.05.2023 is illegal and without application of judicial mind as applicant has raised objection that opposite party no.2 is not the wife of applicant and without considering the objection and affidavit, the court below has allowed the interim maintenance application of opposite party No.2 and granted interim maintenance as Rs.5,000/- per month.

¶9

Considered the argument raised by applicant's counsel and perused the record, it is evident that the submission raised by applicant's counsel is disputed questions of fact, which cannot be considered at this stage, whether the opposite party No.2 is wife of the applicant or not is purely disputed questions of fact which cannot be examined here, as such, no interference is warranted, at this stage in regard to order passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah.

¶10

The present 482 application is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.

¶11

However, Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah is hereby directed to decide application of opposite party No.2 filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶12

Applicant shall comply the order date 19.05.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Etah.

¶13

Order Date :- 10.10.2023 Nitin Verma

¶14

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

Saheel @ Sushil Ahmad v. State of U.P. . and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saheel @ Sushil Ahmad 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

Mahesh Chandra @ Babu Agnihotri Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sajal Gupta and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abdul Rub and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailesh Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nawab @ Nabbu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sandeep Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Another