Dismissed

Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P and Another

Allahabad HC28 Jan 2023A482/39115/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a maintenance order under Section 125 Cr.P.C., this court held that the lower court exercised jurisdiction diligently based on factual findings regarding separate residence and lack of documentary evidence of income, leading to the dismissal of the application.

What did the court decide?

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; maintenance order upheld.

Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39115 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Pradeep Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Miss Farzana, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State

¶6

Challenge in this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to the order dated 12.9.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Meerut in Case No. 186 of 2016 (Smt. Reena Vs. Pradeep Kumar Sharma), under Section 125 Cr. P. C., P.S. Partapur, District Meerut, whereby Court below has awarded monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month in favour of complainant opposite party 2 from the date of application for interim maintenance i.e. 12.5.2016.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant contends that order impugned in present application is manifestly illegal and without jurisdiction. Court below has allowed the claim for monthly maintenance raised by complainant opposite party 2 without considering the fact that complainant opposite party 2 is having sufficient income maintain herself. No finding has been recorded by Court below that complainant opposite party 2 is residing separately on sufficient grounds. She, therefore, submits that in view of above, present application is liable to be allowed.

¶8

Per contra the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application. He submits that Court below has recorded a categorical finding that no documentary evidence was filed by applicant to establish the income of opposite party 2. As such, no infirmity has been committed by Court below in concluding that complainant opposite party 2 has no income.

¶9

Court below has further recorded a finding that opposite party 2 has been residing separately since 26.5.2012 on account of conduct of applicant. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. contends that the order impugned is concluded by finding of fact. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that Court below has exercised its jurisdiction diligently and not in a casual and cavalier manner. The order impugned does not suffer

¶10

from any jurisdictional error. As such, present application is liable to be dismissed.

¶11

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.

¶12

As a result, present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶13

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 28.1.2023 HSM

¶15

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

Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Sharma 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

Krishna Dutt Shukla and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Tasleem and 5 Others Vs State of U.P and Another

Meraj and Another Vs State of U.P and Another

Smt. Rama Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ayaz and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another