Partly allowed

Rajesh Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 May 2023A482/4284/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an interim maintenance order, the court directed the applicant to pay Rs.5000 monthly to the wife instead of Rs.7000 due to her sufficiency of means, upheld the children's maintenance, and directed the Family Court to conclude the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Applicant directed to pay Rs.5000/month to wife and Rs.2000/month to each child; lower court to decide case within six months.

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

¶1

Court No. - 70

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4284 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Sonkar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ankit Saran, Rohan Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi in Case No.667 of 2020, under Section 125 Cr.P.C whereby the court below has awarded interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month to opposite party no.2 and Rs.2000/- each to three minor children from the date of order.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the opposite party no.2, who is wife of applicant, has executed a registered sale deed of plot in question for a sale consideration of Rs.20,63,000/in favour of one Smt. Bindu Devi w/o Keshav Prasad, hence, she has sufficient means to maintain her livelihood, therefore, she is not entitled for any maintenance but the court below without considering these aspect has awarded interim maintenance, which is illegal. He has further submitted that the applicant is willing to pay the maintenance amount as awarded by the court below in favour of his children and even he is ready to keep his children under his guardianship. He has further submitted that the above case pending before the court below may also be directed to decide expeditiously.

¶8

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application is disposed of with the direction to the applicant to pay the interim maintenance of Rs.5000/- per month instead of Rs.7000/- per month to the opposite party no.2 till conclusion of trial of aforesaid case.

¶9

The court below is also directed to decide the aforesaid Case No.667 of 2020, expeditiously, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶10

So far as interim maintenance of Rs.2000/- per month each to the children is concerned, the applicant shall continuously pay the same as awarded by the court below.

¶11

With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present application is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 2.5.2023 Ajeet

¶13

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

Rajesh Kumar Sonkar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Sonkar 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

Yashwant and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 1 Ors.

Dharmu Alias Dharma Alias Bhrambhjeet Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arun Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Roshan and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd Saqib and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Raja @ Mohd. Asif and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another