Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC6 Feb 2023A482/2759/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs. 30,000 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The court held that the trial court had considered the applicant's financial status and the directions in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, finding no illegality or irregularity in the detailed order on merits.

What did the court decide?

Interim application seeking quashing and stay of the interim maintenance order of Rs. 30,000 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

Nitin Agarwal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2759 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Nitin Agarwal Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Agarwal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Shivam Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and 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 Nitin Agarwal with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad in Case No. 192/2022 (Priyanka Bansal and another Vs. Nitin Agarwal) and with a further prayer to stay the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the said court, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., P.S. Modinagar, District Ghaziabad and also stay the further proceedings in the aforesaid case, pending before Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad, during the pendency of the present application.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that his argument and prayer is only to the aspect that the amount of Rs. 30,000/- as directed by trial court to be paid to the opposite party no.2 as interim maintenance is too excessive. It is argued that trial court has failed to consider the fact that opposite party no.2 is an educated lady. She has bank accounts in which there are good balances maintained by her. Although the applicant is earning but there are various expenses on his head, inasmuch as, he is repaying the amount of loans which have been taken and also maintains his parents and a handicapped brother. It is argued that the trial court has not considered these aspects and has also not considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha : 2021 (2) SCC 324 while granting interim maintenance. It is argued that the Apex Court in para 27 and 28 has specifically stated the fact that the lady is educated has to be considered and also the income of the applicant and expenses is also to be considered. It is argued that as such quantum of the maintenance as awarded be reduced.

¶9

Per contra, learned counsel for the State while opposing the

¶10

arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and argues that the trial court has ordered grant of interim maintenance to the applicant. The order impugned is a detailed order passed on merits in the matter. The trial has considered the income of the applicant and has after considering every aspect, granted interim maintenance. It is argued that as such there is no illegality or irregularity in the order impugned passed by the trial court.

¶11

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is the husband of opposite party no.2. By the impugned order dated 15.12.2022 the trial court has directed the applicant to pay Rs. 30,000/- as interim maintenance to the opposite party no.2 and 3. In so far as the arguments as raised by learned counsel for the applicant are concerned, the trial court has considered the same while passing detailed order granted interim maintenance to his wife and minor child which includes expenses for studies of the child and medical expenses. The order has passed is in pursuance of the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha (Supra).

¶12

In these circumstances, looking to the facts of the case, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the court below, the present application is rejected .

¶13

Order Date :- 6.2.2023 M. ARIF

¶14

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶15

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

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

Prince Katiyar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

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