Dismissed

Pappu Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Mar 2023A482/8363/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an interim maintenance order. The counsel for the applicant argued that a subsequent matrimonial order precluded the maintenance order's sustenance, but the court ruled the maintenance order remained valid as the matrimonial decree was not yet executable.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed; interim maintenance order remains in force.

Pappu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 65

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8363 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Pappu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Triloki Nath,Shravan Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. T.N. Tiwari, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No. 3, Deoria in Maintenance Application No. 160 of 2019 (Renu and another Vs. Pappu Yadav), under Section 125 Cr. P. C., P.S. Khukhundu, District Deoria, whereby interim maintenance has been awarded in favour of plaintiffs opposite parties 2 and 3.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant submits that in view of the order dated 18.1.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Court No. 1, Deoria in Matrimonial Case No. 499 of 2019 (Pappu Yadav Vs. Renu Yadav), under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, the order dated 7.12.2022 cannot be sustained and therefore liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the present application. He submits that the order directing interim maintenance which has been impugned in present application was passed on 7.12.2022, whereas the order under Section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act was passed on 18.1.2023 i.e. subsequently. Moreover under the terms of the order dated 18.1.2023, opposite party 2/defendant therein has been granted three months time to rejoin the plaintiff to establish conjugal relation. As such, on date, the judgement and decree dated 18.1.2023 is not executable. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that applicant does not deserve any indulgence by this Court.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 14.3.2023 HSM

¶13

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

Pappu Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sachin Tyagi Vs State of U.P.

Bablu @ Narendra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sant Singh Vs State of U.P.

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