Disposed

Vijay Maurya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2023A482/37452/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking to quash an order for maintenance. The court upheld the liability but structured the discharge of arrears, directing payment in six instalments within one year, while maintaining continuous monthly payments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to deposit arrears in six equal instalments within one year and continue monthly maintenance; default invites appropriate action.

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

¶1

Court No. - 68

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37452 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Vijay Maurya Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar,Puja Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 28.3.2022 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gorakhpur in Case N.238 of 2016, under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station Barahalganj, District Gorakhpur whereby the court below had directed the applicant to pay Rs.5000/- per month as maintenance to opposite party no.2 from the date of application.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is unemployed and is a daily wage labour but the court below has passed the impugned order granting maintenance award to the opposite party no.2 without considering the income of the applicant. The applicant has made all efforts to keep his wife with him, but the opposite party no.2 is not ready to live with the applicant without any plausible reason. The court below has passed the impugned order in a routine manner, which is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same deserves to be quashed. He has lastly submitted that the applicant is continuously paying the maintenance amount as directed by the court below but so far as arrears is concerned, the applicant may be permitted to pay the arrears in easy instalments.

¶8

Considering the aforesaid submission advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, the instant applicant is finally disposed of with a direction that the applicant shall deposit the entire arrears amount due against him in six equal instalments which shall be paid within one year from today. The amount of arrears so deposited by the applicant shall be paid over to the opposite party no.2 after due verification.

¶9

It is further provided that in case of default in making payment of either the first instalment or the successive instalments, the court below will be at its liberty to take appropriate steps in

¶10

accordance with law.

¶11

So far as the amount of maintenance is concerned, the applicant shall continuously pay the same to opposite party no.2.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.1.2023

¶13

Ajeet

¶14

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

Vijay Maurya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Maurya 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rashid Vs State of U.P.

Shyamdarash Vs State of U.P.

Arjun Vs State of U.P.

Vinod and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jay Prakash Saket and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar Rai and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another