Dismissed

Shivdeep Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Nov 2023A482/39071/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought to quash a Family Court order directing him to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 to his wife and Rs. 3,000 to his minor son. The applicant argued the amount was excessive, noting he had not paid anything since the proceedings began in 2020. The High Court found no good ground to interfere and dismissed the application.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking to quash the maintenance order was dismissed with no ground found to interfere.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:220538

¶2

Court No. - 88

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39071 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Shivdeep Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Preet Pal Singh Rathore,Devendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Preet Pal Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the applicant- Shivdeep Singh, who is husband of opposite party no.2-Ritika Sharma and father of opposite party no.3-Aadvik aged about 10 years with a prayer to quash the order dated 30.09.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Mirzapur in Misc. Case No.498 of 2020 (Ritika Sharma and others v. shivdeep Singh), under Section 125 Cr.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur, whereby interim maintenance application of opposite party nos.2 and 3 has been allowed directing the applicant to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the opposite party No.2 (wife) and Rs.3,000/- per month to opposite party no.3 (minor son) towards their interim maintenance.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the said amount is excessive, therefore, the impugned order dated 30.09.2023 is liable to be quashed.

¶9

On putting a query about the payment of interim maintenance, he fairly submits that till date no amount of interim maintenance

¶10

has been paid by the applicant to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3, whereas the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is pending since 2020.

¶11

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter.

¶12

In view of the above, the application lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶13

Office is directed to communicate this Court's order to the concerned Court below within a week for necessary information.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.11.2023 A.N. Mishra

¶15

Digitally signed by :- AMARNATH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shivdeep Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivdeep Singh 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

Bhola Nath Yadav and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kavindra Chauhan and 2 Others Vs State of U.P.and Another

Baldhari and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arif Husain Nd 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satendra Vs State of U.P. and Another