Disposed

Irfan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Feb 2023A482/38412/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a maintenance order. It upheld the family court's award of Rs. 7,000/month but directed the applicant to pay the recovered arrears in four monthly installments rather than as a lump sum.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is directed to deposit the entire recovered amount in four equal monthly installments and continue paying the monthly maintenance of Rs. 7,000/-.

Irfan 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. - 38412 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Irfan Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

In compliance of order of this Court dated 24.01.2023, the applicant- Irfan (husband) and opposite party no.2 Smt. Gulista (wife) are present and identified by their counsel.

¶6

This Criminal Misc. Application U.S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 9.9.2022 as well as the entire proceeding of the Misc case No. 368 of 2021 (Computerized Case No. 276 of 2021) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, P.S. Gulavathi, District Bulandshahr whereby the court below had directed the applicant to pay Rs.5,000/- to opposite party no. 2 and Rs.2,000/- to her son from the date of application.

¶7

It is very fairly contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the court below allowed the application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the opposite party no. 2 by awarding total maintenance to the tune of Rs.7,000/- per month from the date of application, which could not be complied with by the applicant on account of financial difficulties.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant at this stage submitted that the applicant is not in a position to pay the entire amount which is sought to be recovered from him due to his poor financial

¶9

condition and some time may be given to him to deposit the said amount.

¶10

Submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the applicant that opposite party no.2 is residing away from her matrimonial house on her free will along with her parents without any rhyme and reason. It was argued that the applicant has no permanent source of income and he is not in a position to to give such huge amount of maintenance to the opposite party no. 2 and his son. It was further argued that the trial court has allowed maintenance allowance to the opposite party no. 2 from the date of application without assigning any specific reason.

¶11

On the other hand, the learned AGA has supported the impugned order and contended that the impugned order is just and legal and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.

¶12

Indisputably the opposite party no.2 is legally wedded wife of the applicant. The trial court has recorded finding that opposite party no.2 is unable to maintain herself. There is sufficient material on record to prove that respondent no. 2 is simple house wife who does not have any independent earning. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide financial succor to the opposite party no. 2. As far as quantum of amount is concerned, it is apparent that family court itself has provided a very meager amount to opposite party no. 2. Had opposite party no. 2 been living with revisionist, he would have had to spend at least this much amount on her. Therefore, it cannot be said that exorbitant amount has been allowed by the concerned court. To my mind awarded maintenance allowance to the opposite party No. 2 from the date of application is wholly justified.

¶13

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no

¶14

scope for interference in the impugned order. The impugned order is well in conformity in law and does not suffer from material illegality, irregularity, perversity and jurisdictional error.

¶15

However, considering the averment of the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is ready and undertakes to pay the maintenance regularly in case the the amount sought to be recovered from the applicant is directed to be paid to the opposite party no. 2 in easy installments.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid submission of the applicant, to which learned AGA also has no objection, applicant is directed to deposit the entire amount due against him in four equal monthly installments within four months and shall also pay regularly monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/- as awarded by court below.

¶17

Applicant is directed to deposit the first installment by 20.02.2023 before the court below and further undertakes before the court below that he will pay the next installment by 20th of the each succeeding months.

¶18

It is further provided that in case of default in making payment of either the first installments, the court below will be at its liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations/directions the application stands disposed of.

¶20

Order Date :- 17.2.2023 Krishna*

¶21

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

Irfan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan 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

Satya Prakash Chaubey @ Chhote Chaubey Vs State of U.P and Another

Prabal Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anju Aggarwal Vs state of up through secretary home and 2 others

Mohammad Mumtaj Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kapil Dev Tyagi and 2 Others Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Virendra Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others