Dismissed

Rinkesh Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2023A482/40102/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 CrPC challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs. 10,000/month imposed on the applicant. The court held that the applicant's financial inability or health issues do not exempt him from his legal duty to maintain his wife, who had been turned out of the home.

What did the court decide?

The application under Section 482 CrPC challenging the interim maintenance order was dismissed.

Rinkesh Prajapati Vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40102 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Rinkesh Prajapati Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Irfan Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ravi Prakash Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State, Shri Ravi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and perused the record.

¶6

By means of this application under Section 482 CrPC, applicant has challenged the order dated 01.10.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Aligarh in Case No. 1129 of 2019 (Smt. Monika V. Rinkesh Prajapti), under Section 125 CrPC, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh, by which application under Section 125 CrPC, filed by opposite party no.2, has been allowed and the applicant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to opposite party no.2 as interim maintenance from the date of filing of application.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a handicapped person and he is not able to walk freely and easily and he has no means to provide the interim maintenance fixed by the court to his wife and as such, impugned order passed by the court below is bad in the eye of law being too excessive.

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it is evident that opposite party no.2 is the wife of the applicant and is unable to maintain herself. The applicant, after solemnizing marriage with her, started making illegal demand of dowry and for the non-fulfillment of demand of dowry, started torturing her and turned her out of matrimonial home. The applicant is under a legal obligation to maintain his wife.

¶9

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shamima Farooqui Vs. Shahid Khan, reported in (2015) 5 SCC 705 has observed as under :-

¶10

"It can never be forgotten that the inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 CrPC is for amelioration of the financial state of affairs as well as mental agony and anguish that woman suffers when she is compelled to leave her matrimonial home. The statute commands there has to be some acceptable arrangements so that she can sustain herself. The

¶11

principle of sustenance gets more heightened when the children are with her. Be it clarified that sustenance does not mean and can never allow to mean a mere survival. A woman, who is constrained to leave the marital home, should not be allowed to feel that she has fallen from grace and move hither and thither arranging for sustenance. As per law, she is entitled to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. And that is where the status and strata of the husband comes into play and that is where the legal obligation of the husband becomes a prominent one. As long as the wife is held entitled to grant of maintenance within the parameters of Section 125 CrPC, it has to be adequate so that she can live with dignity as she would have lived in her matrimonial home. She cannot be compelled to become a destitute or a beggar. There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person despite having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain the wife. Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay, for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law."

¶12

In view of settled legal position, enumerated above, impugned order is just, proper and legal and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity or apparent error.

¶13

Present application under Section 482 CrPC is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 25.1.2023 Nadim

¶15

Digitally signed by :- NADIM ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rinkesh Prajapati v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinkesh Prajapati 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hakimuddin @ Kallu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Home Department and another

Virendar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shailu Pandit and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shanti Ben Jaswant Lal Patel Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Shaheen Akhatar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Anand Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another